International & G. N. R. Co. v. Keenan
| Decision Date | 28 October 1890 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. v. KEENAN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Gould, Camp & Robertson, for appellant. John M. Duncan and I. J. Rice, for appellee.
Appellee, employed as a brakeman, while in the performance of his duty, uncoupling cars in appellant's railroad yard in San Antonio, had two fingers on his right hand mashed off. The cause of the injury was a defect in the car and the coupling apparatus. Appellant, by several assignments of error, arising from the refusal of the court to give special instructions asked by defendant, insists that the injury resulted from the negligence of its car inspector in failing to report the car in bad order for repairs, and the inspector being a fellow-servant of plaintiff, the company would not be liable. The rule is that a railway company is bound to furnish safe machinery and appliances for use by its employes in operating its road, and if ordinary and reasonable care is not exercised by the company to do this it would be responsible for injuries to its servants caused by such neglect. The company cannot relieve itself of this duty by charging its servants with its performance. The neglect of the servant, to whom the company intrusted such duties, is the neglect of the master. Railway Co. v. Farmer, 73 Tex. 85, 11 S. W. Rep. 156, and authorities cited; Railway Co. v. O'Hare, 64 Tex. 601; Railway Co. v. Bell, 75 Tex. 53, 12 S. W. Rep. 321. The fact that the defective car belonged to another road was immaterial. It was the duty of the company to use the same care in protecting its employes that it would have owed if the car had been its own, and, if the danger of the service was thereby increased, to warn the brakeman. Railway Co. v. White, 76 Tex. 103, 13 S. W. Rep. 65. Appellant requested the court to charge the jury that if the injury was caused by the carelessness of the engineer in backing the train, the negligence would be that of a fellow-servant, and defendant would not be liable. The court gave, in the general charge, a similar instruction, embodying the same principle, and it was not necessary to repeat it by giving the requested charge. The law of contributory negligence as applicable to the case was given to the jury in its general charge, which dispensed with the necessity of giving the special charge asked by appellant on the same subject. Besides this, the charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fort Worth Elevators Co. v. Russell
...to furnish reasonably safe machinery or instrumentalities with which its servants are to labor. I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Kernan, 78 Tex. 297, 14 S. W. 668, 9 L. R. A. 703, 22 Am. St. Rep. 52; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. O'Fiel, 78 Tex. 486, 488, 15 S. W. 33; H. & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Marcelles, 59 Tex. 334......
-
Kilet v. Rutland R. Co.
...564, 45 N. E. 108; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Chambers, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 487, 43 S. W. 1090; International, etc., R. Co. v. Kernan, 78 Tex. 294, 14 S. W. 668, 9 L. R. A. 703, 22 Am. St. Rep. 52; Jones, Receiver, v. Shaw, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 290, 41 S. W. 690; Union, etc., Co. v. Goodwin, 57 N......
-
Jacksonville Ice & Electric Co. v. Moses
...does not affect their absolute character. The corporation cannot shift its personal obligations. Railway Co. v. Kernan, 78 Tex. 294, 14 S. W. 668, 9 L. R. A. 703, 22 Am. St. Rep. 52; Cadden v. American, etc., Co., 88 Wis. 409, 60 N. W. 800; Baird v. Reilly, 92 Fed. 884, 35 C. C. A. 78; Tier......
-
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Harris
...may be set aside. Ordinary care in inspection is required of all cars, regardless of their ownership. Railway v. Kernan, 78 Tex. 297, 14 S. W. 668, 9 L. R. A. 703, 22 Am. St. Rep. 52; Railway v. White, 76 Tex. 103, 13 S. W. 65, 18 Am. St. Rep. 33; Railway v. Harris, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 542, 1......