Bock v. Fellman Dry Goods Co.
Decision Date | 14 January 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 6737.) |
Citation | 173 S.W. 582 |
Parties | BOCK v. FELLMAN DRY GOODS CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Marsene Johnson, Elmo Johnson, and Roy Johnson, all of Galveston, for plaintiff in error. Gill, Jones & Tyler, of Houston, and Mart H. Royston, of Galveston, for defendant in error.
This suit was brought by plaintiff in error against defendant in error to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's son, which it is alleged was caused by the negligence of defendant.
The petition alleges, in substance, that plaintiff's son, who at the time of his death was about 14 years of age and was in the employment of defendant, was killed while in the performance of the duties of his employment on February 11, 1911, by falling into an open elevator shaft or well in the store building of defendant, in the city of Galveston. It is alleged that the room in which plaintiff was performing his duties at the time he met his death, and in which the elevator shaft was situated, was poorly lighted; that the floor of said room, near the opening of said shaft, was greasy and slippery; and that the mechanism by which the gate closing the opening of said shaft was operated was out of repair and failed to close the gate as it should have done. The negligence relied on for recovery against defendant is thus charged in the petition:
Damages were sought in the sum of $15,000.
In addition to general denial, defendant filed pleas of contributory negligence, assumed risk, and negligence of a fellow servant, and further pleaded that the deceased was a trespasser in the elevator room at the time he was killed by falling into the elevator shaft. After hearing the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, and, upon the return of such verdict, judgment was rendered in accordance therewith.
The evidence shows that Jennett Bock, the son of plaintiff, was about 14 years old at the time of his death. He was in the service of defendant at the time of his death; his duties, generally speaking, being to assist other employés in the store in wrapping and packing goods for delivery to customers. It may be inferred from the testimony that, on the occasion on which the accident occurred which resulted in his death, he had been sent to the room on the second floor of the store building, known as the elevator or freight room, for the purpose of getting empty boxes stored in said room, and which were needed in the salesroom on a lower floor of the building for use in packing goods for delivery to purchasers. The freight elevator, which was used for conveying goods to and from the basement and the upper stories of the building, ran up through this room. Jennett Bock did not use the elevator in going to this room, and he had been warned and instructed never to use it. The testimony introduced by plaintiff to show the circumstances in which the accident occurred is as follows:
George Peters testified:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cech v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Co.
... ... death of deceased must have been the result of his own ... negligence. Bock v. Dry Goods Co., 173 S.W. (Tex ... App.) 582; Kauffman v. Shirt Co., 140 P. 15; ... Grand ... other points of its brief. The first one cited on this point, ... Bock v. Fellman Dry Goods Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 173 ... S.W. 582, is declared by appellant to be squarely in ... ...
-
Cech v. Chemical Co.
...the cases cited by appellant under this as well as other points of its brief. The first one cited on this point, Bock v. Fellman Dry Goods Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 173 S.W. 582, is declared by appellant to be squarely in point. That decision might be persuasive in favor of appellant's contenti......
-
Urrutia v. Patino
...negligent act brought about the death. Houston E. & W. T. R. Co. v. McHowell (Tex. Civ. App.) 278 S. W. 258; Bock v. Fellman Dry Goods Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 173 S. W. 582; Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Latham, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 210, 115 S. W. 891; Southern Kansas Ry. Co. of Texas v. Emmett ......
-
Lancaster v. Hunter
...207 S. W. 87; Freeman v. Huffman, 206 S. W. 819; Mills v. Mills, 206 S. W. 100; St. L. S. F. Ry. Co. v. West, 174 S. W. 287; Bock v. Fellan, 173 S. W. 582; McKinney Ice Co. v. Montgomery, 176 S. W. 767; Cobb v. Rodriguez, 209 S. W. There yet remains for disposition, however, the question ar......