T. & N. O. R'Y Co. v. Crowder
| Decision Date | 07 March 1884 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1816. |
| Citation | 61 Tex. 262 |
| Parties | T. & N. O. R'Y CO. v. MARY CROWDER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ERROR from Harris. Tried below before the Hon. James Masterson.
E. P. Hill, for plaintiff in error.
F. F. Chew and W. P. Hamblen, for defendant in error.
This action was brought by Mary Crowder, joined by her present husband, to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been received through the death of her son by a former husband. She alleged that her son was killed while in the employment of the railway company as a brakeman, and that his death resulted from the neglect of the company to keep its track in good condition. She also alleged that her son was employed by the company as a brakeman without her consent and against her wish.
There is nothing in the record to show that the wound from which the son died resulted from any negligence of the company, or, in fact, to show how he came to receive the injury. No one saw him at the time the wound was received.
The petition alleged that the earth had been removed from between the ties of the railway, at the place where the injury occurred, and that in consequence thereof the foot of the deceased became so fastened between the ties and under the rail that he could not disengage it, and that while so fastened the cars ran over his leg and crushed it.
It appears that during the day which preceded the night on which the injury was received, the road was in course of repair, which made it necessary to remove the earth from between the ties, and that this had not been replaced for want of time.
The deceased was working as brakeman in the company's yard at Beaumont, and it is not shown whether he knew of the condition of the track at that place, whether his injury resulted from its condition, nor from what cause the injury did result.
The deceased was over seventeen years of age, and it seems had been employed on other railways as brakeman, but that his mother was unwilling for him to be employed in that business; there is, however, no evidence tending to show that any agent of the railway had knowledge of this fact.
The court gave the following charges to the jury, and this is assigned as error:
1. “That a railroad company has no right to employ as brakeman (if that is a dangerous employment) a minor without the knowledge or consent of the parents, without using care and attention as to his age; if negligent in that particular, and if injured while in such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kansas & Texas Coal Co. v. Brownlee
-
Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hennessey
...or proved, and where no relation exists between the parties that demands immunity from injury, there can be no recovery. Railroad Co. v. Crowder, 61 Tex. 262, 70 Tex. 223, 7 S. W. Rep. 709. In the case before us the act of negligence proved consisted of the failure of defendant to have a li......
-
Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Crowder
...should have been given. Three appeals heretofore prosecuted in this cause by the appellant will be found reported, respectively, in 61 Tex. 262, 63 Tex. 502, and 70 Tex. 222, 7 S. W. Rep. 709. With respect to the facts of this case upon a former appeal, it was said by Chief Justice STAYTON ......
-
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Crowder
...had used such care towards him as his years or inexperience would make necessary. Railway Co. v. Carlton, 60 Tex. 400; Railway Co. v. Crowder, 61 Tex. 262, 63 Tex. 505. Were this an action by a parent for the loss of services of a minor child, the rule would be as stated in Railway Co. v. R......