*1 proposition. respondent on was with Pension Commissioner the Firemen’s Savings matter, Brazosport as has so was This court held. jurisdiction in this Savings v. American dissenting of the & Loan Assоciation in the asserted Association, Hall 342 S.W. Appeals, & Loan of Civil which followed Court Hancock, Relief, etc., City of Amarillo v. 351 S.W. 2d Firemen’s v. Board of disagree, history. 231, 239 788. We 342, Tex.Civ.App., Our Tex. S.W.2d 2d no writ however, respondent in her con- fact that simply on is based conclusion appeal right of provide adminis- tention that her an for stаtute fails agency, stance is another administrative appeal in this situation. trative wit, Commission- Firemen’s Pension V.T.C.S., 6243e, 12 of Article Section guarantees What the Constitutiоn er. monetary provides for for certain benefits ad- judicial of an is a of an order review surviving and children under the widow affecting property agency ministrativе years age dependent parents of or sought in a rights. Such review case the fireman’s death was deceased competent jurisdiction, some court of not to consequence growing out or in a cause agency. other administrative performance duty. There is of his provision appeal no such benefici- judgments of the Court We reverse the 18 of There is under said aries. Section Appeals Court and the District of Civil provision Article 6243e a that the fireman cause tо and remand the aggrieved an order himself appeal. pro- Board of Trustees could Such follows, part is in
vision wit: Any person possessing
“Sec. 18.
qualifications required retire- herein disability length
ment for of service or having temporary or a claim for disa- al., Petitioners, Russell LOVELL et bility aggrieved who deems himself the decision order of Board Trustees, rejec- whеther because of al., Respondents. et Jessie M. STANFORD allowed, may appeal tion or the amount from the decision or order of Board of Trustees to Firemen’s * * Pension Commissioner Jan. provides Section said Article 6243e Rehearing Denied March
for the office of Firemen’s Pension Com- provides missioner also Com-
missioner and/or * * *» review “ [*] all [*] [*] appeals shall hear, herein determine, provided respondent’s points
In one of cross Appeals Court of Civil she contends compensation
that since her claim
provided by property statute involves a
right though and that even made statute provision
no for an that under process clauses both the State
United States is entitled Constitutions she appeal.
to an inherent
Hicks, Wohlt, Houston, & Dollahon petitioner Gilbert M. Marcus. Hill, Brown, Kronzer, Abraham, Wat- Steely, kins Freeman Bullock and & W. Kronzer, Coussons, Jr., and Charles James Houston, respondents. GRIFFIN, Justice. is a rear-end case involv-
This collision rear, automobiles. three From to Auto driven Mrs. M. Stan- Jessie ford, in which Mrs. Ida passenger, proceeding was a westerly direction toward Houston on the Freeway approximately Gulf 5 :00 o’clock April Mrs. the afternoon of approached Stanford the exit which pulled freeway was over to leave far lane the three traffic access road lanes. Due to accident on an be- exit lane traffic Mrs. Stanford’s slow congested down. complete Mrs. to a Stanford slowed down stopped, Very shortly after she driven Mr. Marcus very shortly rear of Car Lovell, by Mr. thereafter Car driven 2, and ran rear into the this colli- was thаt as result of evidence No. was driven into Armstrong filed and Mrs. Stanford Mr. Marcus suit both defend- Lovell, “The named alleging, care, failure ants failed to use negli- amounting (sic) cаuse gence being approximate damage resulting and of the the collision your plaintiffs.” specific acts of No alleged. ligence were at the triеd case was judge testimony the trial conclusion of any issues as to the submit refused to but held negligence negli- guilty both defendants were gence as a-matter of which Talbert, Giessel, Cutherell, & Barnett law. damages, as a Don Stone and C. Barnett and Robert damage is- submitted Houston, petitioner trial court
'Weitinger,
Lovell.
sues
liability
joint
of thе defend-
this caused
to the
as to the
ants,
upon
as to
front of his car.
render-
damage,
amount
that the
col-
Stanford
*3
plaintiffs against
the
the defendants
(cid:127)ed for
pushed
her in
seat and
lision moved
the
damages
by the
the amount of
found
forward, while the second collision
her
Ap-
jury.
the Court
Civil
up
steering
the
threw her
and over
wheеl
judgment.
peals affirmed the trial court’s
her
ligaments
and
the
neck to
strained
(cid:127)court. the two collisions and that the second was greater two; the lick thаt elementary, requires no It is purse (collision) knocked her down and the n citation of authority, judgments that the the second lick her off back seat knocked only courts can sustained (cid:127)of the below between onto floorboard at in the event that the evidence introduced n the trial be such that and back seats. minds reаsonable n that were conclude defendants Mr. Lovell that he heard the testified n negligent as a matter of law and that Mr. screeching of tires on Marcus’ car рroxi .a matter of law this lights on, he and Marcus’ brake suf mate cause impact the noise of the of Car No. heard by To determine al- with No. 1. He also testified that Cаr (cid:127)question analyze we must evidence. 2, impact not though he hit Car No. his did that saw Mrs. Stanford testified she 1, No. and that drive Car No. into Car slowing ahead of and real- (cid:127)cars her down 1, but one collision with Car No. stop. put hand ized she She her left No. and that was the collision Car gave sig- car (cid:127)out of the door and the hand 1, immediately prior to No. with Car stop. Also, nal for a she testified that when colliding No. 3 Car No. 2. Car with stop, .she slow down for the n applied her her brakes and that this caused he Mаrcus further testified that when Mr. lights come brake at the rear of car to car in lane ahead of him slow- saw the his following that signal down, (cid:127)on and thus traffic glanced he in his rear vision mir- n shewas about to Marcus, three-quarters Both Mr. a second to see ror for Lovell, driving driving and Mr. im- safely Car No. into the lane if he could turn n CarNo. they looking tеstified that were mediately to his and avoid the car left stopping, him; as it at Mrs. Stanford’s car that due to the traffic front of sig- lane, .and that them saw hand neither of he turn out of the lane left could not Stanford, given in, nal did either Car nor and when he looked back at he was lights stop, the brake come on. Marcus rapidly coming (cid:127)see it was brought Marcus, he, immediately testified that Mrs. Stanford hit his brake quick on, stop, put lights his (cid:127)car to and that he on to come and thus caused his brake only lightly Car 1 in rapidity brakes once and struck but due to stopping, and that car and his Mrs. Stanford’s Car No. 2 was unable to avoid n car “bumper bumper,” came to He testified that colliding rest with Car No. 1. any appreciable jar. further He 3 collided with after Car No. up to or three of Car No. 2 and went got within two seconds he rest, opened car come to 1 and the door the driver after his end of 2 and had her brake and saw that Mrs. Stanford violently knocked it to the floorboard. down recitation We think a trial court fоr retrial consistent with this negli neither evidence demonstrates that
gence either nor
both of the defendants was established as a CALVERT, (concurring). Chief Justice but were issues of fact conсur jury trying rendered and be decided the case. entered in this do not the ac- All as to the facts of entirety. Court’s parties. This testi- cident came from opinion, In my negligence of Lovell and particulars, mony conflicting in material is was established Marcus as a matter of law. as is shown above. Each of the witnesses *4 However, that the evidence does not gave testimony contradicting each of establish as matter of law that the are other witnesses. In such case there ligence proximate of either defendant was a jury jury, and issues to be resolved (cause in fact) in- may given. an instructed verdict not be and, reason, juries; for that concur-in Dalhart, Flack Bank of v. First National judgment of reversal and remand. (9,10), 628 226 S.W.2d there cited. authorities NORVELL, JJ., SMITH and concur in support jury testimony find- would this ing that the collision of Car No. with Car 1 was cause of the not a plain- suffered fact, testimony plaintiffs tiffs. In support finding. The
would testimony find the colli- No. 3 with Car No. drove of Car caused into Car No. this DEPARTMENT OF TEXAS PUBLIC other damage. all the Petitioner, SAFETY, hand, positive that he Lovell’s did not knock Car No. GENTRY, Respondent. Farris end Car No. when he ran into the rear last collision was raised the issue plaintiffs’ in-
not a damages. Feb. trial court to fail
It was error for the inquiring jury issues
to submit to the defendants, each of the any, proxi-
and if such damages suf- injury and
mate cause of the For this error
judgment must reversed and the cause
remanded to the pointed this defect
Defendants separate judgment and
their motions for disregard
issues. are of both courts below
reversed, and this case remanded to