Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kuemmel v. Vradenburg

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided May 23, 1951No. 12215Published

1DissentW. O. Murray, Chief Justice

(dissenting) .

I am unable to concur in the opinion of the majority. Appellant, by the third and fourth paragraphs of his answer, plead the negligence of the parents in permitting their three-year-old son, Gregory Vraden-burg, to run ahead of them and to go into a place of danger as the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The trial judge sustained special exceptions to these two paragraphs. By trial amendment, appellant plead the act of the parents in permitting their three-year-old child to go into a place of danger as the sole proximate cause of his injuries, whether the act was one of…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. IvesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. McDadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  3. Houston National Bank v. AdairTexas Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. DanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  5. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. W. T. Carter & BrotherTexas Supreme Court · 1902

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API