14 S.W. 242 (Tex. 1890), Houston & T.C. Ry. Co. v. Barrager

Citation:14 S.W. 242
Opinion Judge:GAINES, J.
Party Name:HOUSTON & T. C. RY. CO. v. BARRAGER.
Attorney:O. T. Holt, for plaintiff in error. N. G. Shelley and West & McGown, for defendant in error.
Case Date:June 17, 1890
Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Page 242

14 S.W. 242 (Tex. 1890)




Supreme Court of Texas

June 17, 1890

Error from district court, Travis county.

O. T. Holt, for plaintiff in error.

N. G. Shelley and West & McGown, for defendant in error.


This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have accrued by reason of the negligence of the appellant corporation. The case was before this court at a former term, upon an appeal by the present appellant, and the judgment was then reversed because the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. The opinion is not reported. It is claimed by the appellant that the evidence is in substance the same as upon the first trial, but, not having been able to procure the transcript then brought to this court upon the former appeal, we cannot say whether this be true or not. The plaintiff alleges that he was a brakeman in the employment of appellant, and that he was injured by being crushed between two cars, while attempting to make a coupling, in performance of his duty, without any fault on his part. He avers that the draw-head upon one of these cars was deficient for want of a spring, and that upon the other there was no sufficient bumper, and that upon another there was a deficient brake, which refused to work at the time of the injury, and permitted the portion of the train in motion to be driven upon the standing car with such force as to force in the draw-head, and to force the cars so close together as to inflict the injury. His testimony shows the following facts: The train upon which he was serving was making a run in the direction of Austin. At Elgin the train became uncoupled. He and the baggage-master went to examine the cause of the accident, and discovered that the draw-head on one of the cars had pulled out. There is a spring attached to this appliance for the purpose of regulating the starting and stopping of the train, which also serves to prevent the cars from coming so close together as they would otherwise do. This spring had dropped out, and was not found. According to his testimony the baggage-master, who was his superior, directed him to replace the draw-head without the spring, which he did. The cars were recoupled, and the train proceeded to Manor. At that station the train-men were directed to set out two cars of the train upon the switch. The train was uncoupled in the...

To continue reading