*1 judgment issues, must reverse that, we as to those trial court. Wisdom that of the Appeals affirm Court of Civil 2d 164. Smith, W. 209 S. of Civil the Court conclusion reached 4 Under the point there respondent’s unnecessary pass on it to it was so, decided; now be must But is excessive. the verdict was cause question, the jurisdiction decide that since we have it. Appeals to determine Civil remanded to the Court must be Appeals is Accordingly, Court of of the decide court to to that cause is remanded and the reversed verdict. issue of excessiveness May
Delivered 1952.
Rehearing June 1952. overruled Mary Lochausen, et al. H. Burt v. Jesse Jr. Elizabeth 1952. May 21, No. A-3443. Decided
Rehearing June 1952. overruled 194.) (249 W., Series, S. *2 Andress, of El Lipscomb Theodore Andress, & Peticolas Paso, Mary Burt. petitioner, Elizabeth holding that there Appeals erred in The Court of Civil affirming judgment of negligence; gross no evidence of jury. Bowman notwithstanding verdict of the the trial court Paschall, 571; Campbell v. 2d Puckett, 125,188 v. 144 Texas Osman, 593; Edwards 132 Texas 656, 121 S.W. 868. 19 S W. R, Grambling, Grambling Allen Jones, Hardin, Howell and & Smith, Brown, Gog- Lochausen, Kemp, Paso, H.
of El for Jesse L. Ras- Rasberry John Scott, White, Burges, & Hulse gin & Paso, Insurance White, for Life Wynham of El K. betry, and *3 Virginia, respondents. Company of opinion the Court. delivered the
Mr. Justice Griffin understanding necessary of this pertinent to facts may as follows: cause be stated agent man- Lochausen, and associate an insurance who was prior Virginia, to Company
ager The Life Insurance Burt for application of Richard had taken the March Company. Burt lived about $25,000 the Insurance insurance in farm, in on the and came El on his miles west of Paso fourteen morning 6, 1950, for the insurance examined of March to be to Lochausen’s Company went examiner. He first medical together They at elevator. went office and met Lochausen examined, which examination office and Burt was the doctor’s went im- and Burt was concluded about noontime. Lochausen mediately Mexico, Burt, Juarez, and refreshment. for lunch friend, joined them at the Central Cafe Lochausen Juarez, who pay for the drinks and rolled dice to see should who meal, paid lunch. Burt for the Lochausen “stuck” City hers. in his and his wife in Mrs. had come to the own car and, by company Burt prior arrangement, her car motor to be left serviced Popular Dry husband at the was to meet her Paso, Company Texas, return home in El at 1 P. M. and Goods Juarez, appoint- with him in his car. While in Burt recalled his ment with his wife and and came to borrowed Lochausen’s car way get El and met Burt Paso Mrs. and told her he had go home she could in his returned to Juarez. on car. Burt lunch, At the conclusion of the Juarez and at about 2:30 to M., 3:00 trip P. Lochausen and Burt down the El Paso made Valley and later returned to Juarez 4:00 about P. M. where they they remained until about 6:45 P. M. when left for the Burt farm home in Lochausen’s car. Lochausen testified Burt the lunch time in Juarez before Burt him, during had asked Burt, El
came to Paso to meet Mrs. to take him home later. testimony There was in the record that Lochausen had said morning, 7th, to meet Burt the next March to collect the premium, testimony first and also from Lochausen that he was through with the matter of insurance after the examination policy until the delivery, was returned premium which time the would due be under the then status matter, regard and at which time he would collect it. it We premium immaterial whether the was to collected on be morning delivery of the policy. 7th or on tragic The unfortunate and accident in Burt lost his life M., 6th, Highway occurred about 7:00 P. March 80-A just city west of point limits. At the where the accident occurred, points vicinity, high- at all in the immediate way is a highway stripe four-lane with a double buttons marking the center. may We will recite such needed in legal connection with points our discussion of the dis- cussed opinion. in this ¡suit
Petitioner filed in one of the district courts in El Paso County, Texas, against respondents, Lochausen and the Insur- *4 Company damages ance by for suffered virtue of the death of her accident, alleging husband in the unfortunate Lochausen to be the owner and driver of the car when the accident occurred. alleged She further injuries that the and death her of husband gross were negligence, caused the heedless and reckless disre- gard rights of safety the and of others on the of Lochausen (joining the Company party Insurance aas defendant on the theory agent that Lochausen was the of the Insurance engaged and in agency employment the course of his and at the time accident) of the (a) as follows: that Louchausen drove and operated great, his car at a speed; excessive and reckless rate of (b) a speed in per contrary law; excess of 60 miles hour to (c) passed that he proceeding overtook and a truck in the same curve; direction on a (d) left passed hand that he overtook and a proceeding truck in the same direction and drove the left to of the center highway at a time when of the left side the center was traffic, etc., not contrary law; (e) free from to that operated he so his keep car as to fail to and maintain same under proper degree management driving of control and in said car off of highway; (f) said keep proper that he failed to the lookout highway. curving ad- upon persons said and vehicles other neg- gross grounds of pleaded all claimed dition, petitioner such negligence. ligence ordinary as parties rested had after all the and of At the close each, Company, filed and Insurance respondents, Lochausen
the grounds upon the separate for an verdict motions instructed respondents’ granting mo- court in these trial sustained the judgment non obstante veredicto. tion for a alleged issues, court, special all the in submitted The trial upon negligence jury, each of which grounds (d) to the of save response plaintiff and in jury favorable answers for returned ordinary acts to be appropriate found each such claimed to negligence issues of gross negligence proximate cause also and and timely filed injuries. of the defendants Each accident judgment disregard in their and render to the verdict motions notwithstanding heard the motions the verdict. The court favor arguments judg- and rendered thereon and sustained them nothing. predicated plaintiff motions were ment that primarily take The established, grounds on as that evidence guest law, Lochausen at time matter of that Burt was the of neg- guilty gross Lochausen not of the accident of challenge ligence. one, points appeal, Plaintiff’s save on rendering grounds judg- these the action of court response ment the motions. Paso, appealed Appeals at El
Petitioner
the Court of Civil
Texas,
court,
only
majority opinion,
its
discussed
question
judgment
of
correctness
obstante”
as
of
“non
Burt,
law,
“guest”
upon (a) that
a matter
was a
of
based
as
accident,
“pas-
at the
not
defendant Lochausen
time
senger”
meaning
6701b,
(Art.
within the
our
“Guest Statute”
S.) ;
was,
law,
(b)
A.V.
that Lochausen
a matter of
C.
guilty
gross negligence
question.
not
occasion in
court
Court
affirmed the action of the trial
particulars,
both
the above
and affirmed the
McGill,
dissenting
agreed
opinion,
rendered.
Justice
guest
accident,
Burt was
Lochausen’s
at the time
but
*5
position
support
jury’s
took the
there was
ver-
evidence to
the
negligence.
agreed
guilty
gross
dict that Lochausen
He
was
of
majority opinion
Company
with the
that the Insurance
was not
liable,
and he would
in
have affirmed the trial court’s
Company.
favor of the Insurance
1 We with both below is courts that there
294 the of Virginia Company Life (1) Insurance of be- cause, in opinion, our the of case American Nat. Ins. Co. v. al, Denke et 128 95 107 A. L. R. 409 is controlling so as to Company relieve the liability. Insurance of The written employment agent contract of of in the the Denke case is set out opinion. in that
The contract of Lochausen with The Life Insurance Com pany Virginia, by of as shown an exhibit to the Statement of Facts, provides, among things, appointed other that Lochausen is agent as in El territory purpose the procuring Paso “for the of applications for insurance in the said The Life Insurance Com pany Virginia, collecting of purpose paying for the premiums over Company effected, to the insurance on such when performing and of such other duties connection therewith as may required by be Company,” Agent said and “3. The shall be governed in Agency by the business of his the written and printed may instructions and rules which he from time to time * * receive from the appointing *.” The contract manager Lochausen as territory associate El Paso signed by Webb, Jr., manager Lochausen and Malcolm H. as appoints agent (to Lochausen as “his be known as Associate Manager) purpose for supervising training agents appointed Paso, Texas, Territory El State Territory, Texas and premiums carrying the collection of out of such duties, other responsibilities and instructions may placed upon Party (Lochausen) of the Second Part Party (Webb).” of the First Part The Insurance Com pany appointment by appropriate wording consented to the signature of the contract and bottom of an assistant vice-president. is There no evidence that the Insurance Com pany any exercised except control over Lochausen “the employment, contractual features of his and to the attainment results, ‘physical ultimate and not to details as to the manner performance’ soliciting, collecting, of his movements while at tending meetings, etc.,” as is said this in the Denke case court (loc. cit., 2d, p. 128 Texas 2nd In S. W. col. case, Shepherd Denke Saunders ran his car into Denke and (Saunders) driving City while he across Galveston express purpose soliciting case it insurance. is, (Insurance question said “the decisive had the defendant Company) right given particular, to control in con doing person wrong,” duct of (loc. cit., 128 Texas 373, top Also, S. W. 2d opinion 2nd col. “In are our while there provisions numerous in the control contract indicate Saunders, yet pro- over we think the control evidenced such *6 em- features of his primarily to the contractual related visions results, not to ultimate the attainment of ployment, and to performance’ move- of his as to the manner of ‘physical details attending meetings, soliciting, collecting, Fall- etc. ments while ing particular, control was not such as in this last short negli- part plaintiff in for liability error his on to create although automobile; gent operation in of his wife’s acts engaged may in the furtherance of the been the time he have contrary, decisions to company’s there are business. While of our including more the Courts one or sup- weight overwhelming decisions state, yet of all recent foregoing ports statement.” Reporter Shephard’s Cita- Southwestern
An examination of only never over- the Denke case been that not has tions shows Texas, cited numerous questioned in it has ruled or but been addition, point, cited in cases and in also has been times on this thoroughly jurisdictions Texas. It dis- other than in fourteen authorities, cusses, analyzes quotes and re- from various Company judgment of the verses and renders for the Insurance jury, plaintiffs upon trial based favorable answers of court and Appeals. had been affirmed Court of Civil opinion quota- with further We will not burden this easily and read those ions from the case as it can be found interested. ground agree (2) further with both courts below We engaged Lochausen was not at the time of the accident Company. The scope employment of his with Insurance around noon and the examination of Burt was concluded
medical regard Company Burt concluded at with business taking Burt home some six that time. The act of Lochausen later, spent of them had the after- or seven hours after the two pleasure enjoyment, in the further- in mutual was not noon Company, particular Insurance but ance of business Lochausen, only friendly neighborly on the act way home performed request of Burt had a with Burt. M., preferred to continue his own wife at 1:00 P. but (Burt) later, requested take him Lochausen to until devices enjoyment agreed do, home, mutual for the which Lochausen liability Insurance on the could of both. There any event, happened while Lochausen was in accident unless the Company’s This is business. the furtherance of the Insurance elementary will num- and we not cite statement of the law 279, Agency, support 2 Am. erous it. Jur. Sec. authorities 360; Servant, seq., 35 Am. et Master Secs. Jur. *7 Dig. Secs, 69, 70, 74; 558; 124, Tex. 555 and 27 29 Tex. Jur. 708, Servant, 302, 302(6). Master and Secs. Fidelity
Petitioner case of Union Life Ins. cites the Texas al, App., 186, Co. v. 62 2d no writ McGinnis Tex. Civ. S.W. et history, authority proposition that Lochausen was a for her scope servant of the Insurance within the employment at the time of the accident. That cause has no writ history by and it is noticed that it has not been cited our courts case, Also, supra. since had the Denke we feel that this court case, by reference to the McGinnis and those other cases Courts holding along line, Appeals when in the Denke Civil the same contrary, includ- case we said: “While there are decisions to the ing state, yet by one or of our more the Courts of Civil supports overwhelming weight recent of all decisions foregoing statement”; i.e., liability there was Company. the Insurance Kennedy American et al v.
Petitioner also cites the case Co., 155, 364, 916, 111 A. L. Nat. Ins. 130 Texas 107 2d R. S.W. sustaining ques- her there was no contention. that case Wilson, feasor, tion but that A. L. the tort was the servant company. office as an insurance He worked out of home agency inspector, traveling in car from town to town his own agencies. company question where the The there was whether had authority company use his or not this servant of the had the company car own in his work render insurance liable so as to others, injuries inflicted while Wilson on Wilson driving discharge from one town of his duties. to another against company plaintiff A had for the the insurance Appeals, been reversed and rendered the Court of Civil a new trial this court reversed and remanded the cause for controlling opinion to de- order for the out in the be issues set upon termined another trial. agree opinion
3 We Appeals, with the unanimous of the Court guest occasion
that Burt was the
of Lochausen on the
car,
question,
passenger
in Lochausen’s
was not mere
expressed by
majority opinion,
as is
as follows:
the court’s
everywhere seems to
“The rule established
the authorities
be,
provisions
a defi-
of such statutes
to remove
case from
tangible
relationship
and a definite
nite
must
established
be
motivating
operator
been the
in-
benefit to the
shown to have
firmly
furnishing
transportation.
rule is
fluence for
297
Rowe,
State, Raub v.
Tex.
of this
in the decisions
established
Jason,
;
r.)
v.
Tex.
(e.
Franzen
2d
App., 119 S. W.
Civ.
Henson,
(e.
; Henry
Tex.
727,
r.)
v.
Civ.
2d
App.,
W.
166 S.
Civ.
might
(e
;
added
270,
r.)
and to which
2d
App., 174 W.
S.
thought
suggested by plaintiff are
many
The benefits
other cases.
remote,
speculative
uncertain,
to be definite
too
to be
Legion,
Post,
American
tangible.
Leete v. Griswold
See
copied from the Con-
(and
our statute
See also 234, dismissed, App., Nored, cor- 133 S.W. Tex. Civ. Linn Supp., p 264, 10 Year Vol. Automo- judgment; Tex. Jur. rect biles, seq. et Sec. *8 guest of Lochausen the time of
4 Burt Since accident, liability upon Lochausen can no for the acci- there be S., 6701b, 1925) (Art. “unless such V. A. C. accident shall dent part operator (of said or intentional on the of owner have been automobile) or his heedlessness or his caused reckless disregard rights being pleadings no of others.” There of the or part intentional on of evidence that the occurrence was Loc- hausen, liability upon rest must his actions and conduct his amounting “gross negligence.” part time The latter of to “gross quotation held to from the statute has been mean above Rogers Allen, negligence”. supra, Blake, Texas, Rowan v. 150 373, 1001, opinions. and cited in these It 240 2d cases S.W. has the decided in Texas leave the to said that cases law as what been gross negligence liability under constitutes our “Guest hopeless in a state of confusion. Statutes” negligent far host’s conduct is so automobile or “Whether wanton, reckless, willfully improper or him render liable gratuitous guest, prevailing liability a under standard of every upon of depends combination circumstances case place. particular No two present time one or acts at the host, or two on the of the one factors from or omissions segregated among present, then can the conditions and there constituting necessarily arbitrarily characterized par- duty. typically Yet host some one of breach every such traf- the central feature of ticular act or omission is determining, still It of itself but it is of fic accident. is not Blashfield, Cyclopedia significance.” Law of Automobile critical 1, 393, Practice, p. 2324. Part Sec. Vol. thought- only momentary There show are certain facts which lessness, inadvertence, judgment alone, only or error of or show ordinary negligence which, law, as a of matter does not consti- gross negligence. showing tute There are other facts continued persistent conduct, evidencing or of course an entire want resulting danger rights care from realization of the to the others, safety rights, and a conscious such indifference to finding persons affected, support welfare of the which will that guilty gross negligence. Puckett, the tort feasor is Bowman v. 144 Texas and cases therein S.W. cited. gross negligence In pleadings bar there the case at were proper jury were submitted and the issues thereon returned gross negligence. guilty a verdict that Lochausen was disregarded jury trial court and set aside the answers of the finding gross negligence and rendered for the de- fendants, part upon theory proven, based in that the facts law, guilty aas matter of did not show Lochausen gross negligence. reviewing action of the trial court in this its affirmance we Court must consider standpoint all the in the record favor- from most plaintiff. Corporation able to McAfee et al v. Travis Gas al, et 137 Texas 2d 442. Also, granting
5 judgment the action trial sustain court veredicto,
non obstante it must be determined having upon jury probative there is no evidence force which the findings upon. could have made Whiteman v. Harris *9 relied al, 699, refused; App., et Tex. Civ. 123 S.W. 2d writ et Warren Schawe, App., al v. Tex. Civ. 163 2d writ refused. weigh jury’s province evidence, “It all was the to of the to given any decide what credence should to the whole or to testimony jury judges of of ‘The the each witness. were the only proved, not of the facts of the to be but also inferences therefrom, provided drawn such inferences were not unreason- Stephenville, Shelton, App., Ry. able.’ N. & S. T. Tex. Co. v. Com. Lockley Page, 208 142 S. 916.” 180 W. W. S. 616, (1-3) ; Trial, seq., also 53 Am. Jur. et 158 Secs. and 159. carefully
6 We and have read over of Facts the Statement evidence, viewed the exhibits feel that is plaintiff, most there viewed favorably standpoint support from the the of the to jury’s findings. viewpoint plaintiff’s From shows the evidence driving that defendant Lochausen his at a car after dark high speed rate per excessive of 70-75 miles hour immedi- city Two witnesses El Paso. city ately limits the outside winding road and de- curved road was the testified known to him was well the road admitted Lochausen fendant highway winding, hills crooked, between the “a and that it was great there”; amount of traffic on there was a and the river knowing time; and char- nature that well road at the this large van-type passed a trailer the defendant of the curve acter entering curve; just this lefthand cars were on its left as both degrees; sharp one of from 30 to a rather that the curve was oncoming pulled in front traffic passing defendant that in so oncoming sharply to traffic to cut to avoid this had order right, placed car in immediate front his defendant’s proximity just passed and in to he had such truck-van collision, and driver feared a to avoid the the truck that accelerator and slowed down took foot off the truck’s same highway speed; down the that defendant’s car went truck’s pulled paved portion distance, thereof a short and then off the guard shoulders, ran rail this onto dirt into side highway place feet from the car some defendant’s 68% wheel, highway, wheels, left the or same time cutting digging track, appreciable ditch, of the car or or highway; scraped dirt shoulder of the that defendant’s car guard feet, angle this rail for a distance and then at an highway, leaving paved its left recrossed the its tracks on portion thereof, dike, and continued on its course and climbed a embankment, through fairly large-sized or and ran oleander branch, completely bush of more than one turned over on the top facing highway car’s and came to rest with its front end having come, from the direction which it had traveled a total guard of 191 feet from the time the car rail left the on the other highway, steering side of the and that mechanism did not testimony. lock as Lochausen claimed in his There is support applied the conclusion that the brakes were from the pavement upside time the car left it until came rest down on the levee. Lochausen testified he did all he could to control the car, but was unable to do so. speed having a case of excessive alone
This is not caused the accident, being ordinary negligence, and thus a case of but from *10 case, of this shown all the facts and circumstances the right evidence, jury defendant, think the had a to find the we gross negligence. Therefore, Lochausen, guilty the trial of granting judgr in Lochausen’s motion for was in error court veredicto, the Court in ment non obstante affirming such action. error in judgment judgment that of both courts is affirmed
Our is Virginia, and that it The Life Insurance as to courts; judgment courts recover its costs in all that of both hereby are favor of Lochausen reversed below petitioner, Mary here rendered in Elizabeth favor Lochausen, Burt, sole, against defendant, H. a feme Jesse together Jr., jury, $50,900 with the sum of as found all her costs all courts. concurs in the result.
Associate Justice Wilson dissenting. and Calvert Associate Justices Garwood May 21, Opinion 1952. delivered Rehearing overruled June 1952. concurring.
Mr. Justice Wilson gross negligence, agree question on the I with dissent majority judgment of in the that the concur in the belief but guest passenger proof or rests on the on the issue of burden measuring testimony the defendant. Under the standard test disregard portions jury of defendant’s own testi- could those establishing guest. mony the issue of I there was some believe finding support jury’s plaintiff’s hus- evidence to passenger. a band was May 21,
Opinion delivered 1952. dissenting. joined Calvert, Justice Garwood, Mr. Justice Rogers Blake, over negligence gross Clyde myself, the dissent of Justice Smith nighttime a at was held as matter of law not to exist where foreknowledge stop deliberately defendant driver sign guarding and with artery city artery, without traffic crossed that stopping, speed jury reasonably have found which the could excessive under the and in face of auto- circumstances right angles approaching him, jury could mobile reasonably have or should concluded the defendant either saw justification have seen. The defendant had no more for his mis- respondent, Lochausen, conduct did than here. On smaller scale physical accident, is, extraordinary facts performance of the car in the course of the acci- defendant’s dent, Here, were not dissimilar from those the instant case. there, positive safety the driver had a interest in the of his *11 knew There the driver material. guest, if that consideration through traffic was a street experience that previous from approaching it signs was guarded by stop knew he artery and Here he was angles cross it. right he tried well before at curve, including for a few road, with the familiar exces- of his conscious was no doubt the accident seconds before sign disregard stop a speed. had a deliberate There we sive warning legal stop also a (which a was both command relatively ex- at least danger) speed a taken as at which could be highway along speed four-lane Here there cessive. was limit seventy-five hour, point at where miles an about going fifty five, attempt pass trucks an two that hour was just was reached. as known curve in the same direction intersection, There, another approached the as the defendant burning visible, closely ap- headlights car, was with normal artery. proaching along no matter of cross it the traffic Here going four- up and down the same traffic but traffic is involved traveling, highway defendant Lochausen was lane on which the though, doubt, just the accident. no it was all visible before suggestive obviously no traffic situation here seems more usually grave Rogers peril It not than it Blake. is single grave pass matter line of vehicles on to overtake op- highway, approaching from a four-lane even with traffic designed posite highways to reduce the direction. Broad are dangers operations. otherwise inherent in such There knowingly actually evidence here Lochausen or even alleged wrong on the side of the road. His admission that he sharply passed turned in front last “to van avoid on- he coming wrong any traffic” not mean on does he was side “oncoming wrong more than traffic” was on the side— which, was, might if it it some well have result of been unexpected surprised move that and confused Lochausen. Cer- tainly it does that Lochausen had been not warrant inference wrong road than a few if side of the for more seconds vague very admis- ever was there. than this brief and Other amount, character, sion there is no evidence all about “oncoming visibility, specific previous traffic.” or location may single shows, all it have been but a For the evidence well car, very up last before Lochausen turned to the second away right, may or too far two much have seemed to be either suggest proper road to serious risk. There on its own side of the coming the on car there was is no from the driver of Rogers v. Blake. winding highway road” and It was “a is said that this broad the curve where the acci- the inference to be drawn that seems evidence, appears however, happened was a severe one. The dent in- from the road undisputed that mile this curve back *12 bend, permissible and rather mild that the cluded but one other curve, fifty-five mile, including miles speed last was for that per night, sixty daylight, no and there was hour at and in that latter, photo- warning sign The from the curve itself. at the dangerous evidence, appear graphs to so that in does not be negotiating per seventy-five would more it miles hour be at crossing attempted of a certainly Blake’s disastrous than Mr. sign. say city stop it was artery To that in violation of a traific degree” “forty-five a little in of actual risk. curve means terms wide, long enough only curve and road If of a be the radius greater change surfaced, properly pitched, in well a far high degrees very safely at forty-five made than can be course speed. high given Possibly beyond rate speed be mere some should gross negligence, speed here the considered as evidence of but legal only twenty per and the limit miles hour above the proof extraordinary at all There is no curve itself no hazard. speed a before as Lochausen’s more than few second to except testimony quite of a moderate rate accident his own alleged plaintiff’s attorney had been his to the that he statement only neighborhood going fifty per in hour. miles might argued peristent a proof course of mis- show that be to is the Lochausen was familiar with conduct that stop just Blake road and as Mr. knew about the curve — sign Rogers in Blake. v. have, course, Allen, 134 held in Rowan v. Texas
We proof speed and 50 134 2d that “between 45 S.W. city and a an hour” limits of San Antonio miles within slight wrong speed side of road deviation at that to negligence. ordinary than In amounted to no more evidence Puckett, took Bowman v. we pains (a) driver to stress the facts the defendant had been high hour) quite proceeding speed (ninety per miles his entering long city after limits a time and failed to slow down city occurred, (b) did so which the accident notwithstanding knowledge a of his car had brakes tendency faulty applied. throw the car to one side when Rogers Blake, speed, while conservative the absolute high sense, it have been if the in relation to what would sign stopped stop as he have done. driver had should court, It to me that the instant case the without seems high saying basing largely so, its decision on the matter of might conceivably above, suggested a Now, such basis speed. altogether though perhaps not reasonably practical, just great trouble- these otherwise logical, way number to settle knowingly say gross negligence that one who To some cases. seventy an hour miles special justification, drives over without careless, just reckless, would any and not circumstances is under great many people. Nor would probably quite sensible seem disregard of extraordinary deliberate appear hold that the it holding negligence. gross But sign stop evidence is itself decisions in- points, as the abovementioned otherwise on these do, by those do, purporting, we to stand that we dicate decisions, gross neg- proof of present I case affords think the affirmed also as ligence, judgments should be and that the below defendant-respondent Lochausen. to the *13 reached. herein in the conclusion
Mr. concurs Calvert Justice Opinion May 1952. delivered Bottling Company.
B. H. Hankins v. Coca Cola 18, 1952. A-3575. Decided June No. (249 W., Series, 1008.) S.