54 S.W. 944 (Tex. 1900), Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Hayter

Citation54 S.W. 944, 93 Tex. 239
Opinion JudgeGAINES, C.J.
Party NameGULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. HAYTER et al.
AttorneyJ. W. Terry, for plaintiff in error. [93 Tex. 240] Neyland & Neyland, T. D. Montrose, and Lee A. Clark, for defendant in error.
Case DateJanuary 15, 1900
CourtSupreme Court of Texas

Page 944

54 S.W. 944 (Tex. 1900)

93 Tex. 239

GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO.

v.

HAYTER et al.

Supreme Court of Texas

January 15, 1900

Error to court of civil appeals of Fifth supreme judicial district.

Action by J. O. Hayter and another against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company. From a judgment of the court of civil appeals affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

J. W. Terry, for plaintiff in error.

[93 Tex. 240] Neyland & Neyland, T. D. Montrose, and Lee A. Clark, for defendant in error.

GAINES, C.J.

This suit was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. He recovered a judgment, which, upon appeal, was affirmed by the court of civil appeals. The plaintiff was a passenger on a train of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, which was struck by a freight train of the defendant company at a point where the road of the former company is crossed by that of the latter. He was seated in the smoking car, and the train upon which he was riding was passing the crossing at the time the collision occurred. It was struck about the coupling between the chair car and the sleeping car. Among other things, he testified as follows: 'That the M., K. & T. train had stopped for the crossing, and was just moving forward, when he saw the Santa Fé train approaching the crossing at a rapid rate of speed, at a distance therefrom of about one-quarter of a mile. I did not think at the time that there would be a collision. About the time the Katy train started over the track at the crossing, it suddenly moved forward with a jerk, and increased speed. The whole of it got across the crossing except the chair car and the sleeper. The Santa Fé train ran into the Katy train about the coupling between the chair car and the sleeper. The Katy train came to a sudden stop, jarring plaintiff considerably, but he did not realize that he was hurt until he got off the train. * * * The coach that plaintiff was sitting in did not leave the track, but the chair [93 Tex. 241] car, which was next behind the car in which plaintiff was riding, and the sleeping car, which was the rear car of the train, both left the track,--were derailed. That plaintiff was not knocked off his seat, nor did the collision tear his hands loose from the hold he had taken, nor knock him from the seat, nor disturb his position any that he could tell, but it frightened him greatly.' There was testimony tending to show that a serious nervous affection, known as 'traumatic neurasthenia,' resulted from the accident, and that this may have been caused either by the physical shock or by the mental shock produced by fright, or by both. The trial court ruled, and in effect charged the jury, that, if the negligence of the servants of the defendant company caused a collision between the two trains, 'and * * * that, as a direct result of said collision, plaintiff received a mental shock, or a physical injury, or both, that caused a disease or sickness to develop from which plaintiff has suffered physical pain and mental anguish, and * * * such negligence of the Santa Fé Company was the proximate cause of such disease or sickness,' they should find a verdict for him.

The only error assigned in this court is 'that the court of civil appeals erred in holding that the plaintiff can...

To continue reading

Request your trial
76 practice notes
  • 58 So. 927 (Ala.App. 1912), Spearman v. McCrary
    • United States
    • Alabama Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 18 Abril 1912
    ...rulings in other jurisdictions which fully support this proposition. See note to case of Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Ry. Co. v. Hayter, 93 Tex. 239, 54 S.W. 944, 47 L. R. A. 325, 77 Am. St. Rep. 856, 862. The authorities on the subject are in irreconcilable conflict. 1 Cooley on Torts (3d......
  • 73 So. 205 (Ala.App. 1916), 6 Div. 8, Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Baladoni
    • United States
    • Alabama Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 28 Noviembre 1916
    ...to the views herein expressed; many of them will be found collated in the following authorities: Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Hayter, 93 Tex. 239, 54 S.W. 944, 47 L.R.A. 325, 77 Am.St.Rep. 862; 38 Cyc. 449, note 2; 8 R.C.L. 525, section 80, note 19; 1 Cooley on Torts (3d Ed.) 96, note 82;......
  • 195 S.W. 1034 (Mo. 1917), McCardle v. George B. Peck Dry Goods Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 29 Mayo 1917
    ...K. Tel. Co., 133 Mo.App. 451; McCardle v. Peck D. G. Co., 191 Mo.App. 263; Shellabarger v. Morris, 115 Mo.App. 566; Hayter v. Railroad, 93 Tex. 239; Railroad v. Roller, 100 F. 738; Stewart v. Railroad, 112 La. 765; Hack v. Dady, 142 A.D. 510, 127 N.Y.S. 122; Jones v. Railroad, 48 N.Y.S. 914......
  • 43 Pa.Super. 344 (Pa.Super. 1910), 112-1909, Reardon v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 20 Julio 1910
    ...a case like the one at bar, when the injuries were received as the direct result of a collision: Gulf, Colorado, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hayter, 93 Tex. 239 (54 S.W. 944); Purcell v. Ry. Co., 48 Minn. 134 (50 N.W. 1034); Mack v. R. R. Co., 52 S.C. 323 (29 S.E. 905); Denver, etc., R. R. Co. v. Roll......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
76 cases
  • 58 So. 927 (Ala.App. 1912), Spearman v. McCrary
    • United States
    • Alabama Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 18 Abril 1912
    ...rulings in other jurisdictions which fully support this proposition. See note to case of Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Ry. Co. v. Hayter, 93 Tex. 239, 54 S.W. 944, 47 L. R. A. 325, 77 Am. St. Rep. 856, 862. The authorities on the subject are in irreconcilable conflict. 1 Cooley on Torts (3d......
  • 73 So. 205 (Ala.App. 1916), 6 Div. 8, Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Baladoni
    • United States
    • Alabama Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 28 Noviembre 1916
    ...to the views herein expressed; many of them will be found collated in the following authorities: Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Hayter, 93 Tex. 239, 54 S.W. 944, 47 L.R.A. 325, 77 Am.St.Rep. 862; 38 Cyc. 449, note 2; 8 R.C.L. 525, section 80, note 19; 1 Cooley on Torts (3d Ed.) 96, note 82;......
  • 195 S.W. 1034 (Mo. 1917), McCardle v. George B. Peck Dry Goods Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 29 Mayo 1917
    ...K. Tel. Co., 133 Mo.App. 451; McCardle v. Peck D. G. Co., 191 Mo.App. 263; Shellabarger v. Morris, 115 Mo.App. 566; Hayter v. Railroad, 93 Tex. 239; Railroad v. Roller, 100 F. 738; Stewart v. Railroad, 112 La. 765; Hack v. Dady, 142 A.D. 510, 127 N.Y.S. 122; Jones v. Railroad, 48 N.Y.S. 914......
  • 43 Pa.Super. 344 (Pa.Super. 1910), 112-1909, Reardon v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 20 Julio 1910
    ...a case like the one at bar, when the injuries were received as the direct result of a collision: Gulf, Colorado, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hayter, 93 Tex. 239 (54 S.W. 944); Purcell v. Ry. Co., 48 Minn. 134 (50 N.W. 1034); Mack v. R. R. Co., 52 S.C. 323 (29 S.E. 905); Denver, etc., R. R. Co. v. Roll......
  • Request a trial to view additional results