Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 01 May 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 1453.)
• Parties: CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. v. WILSON et ux.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

176 S.W. 619

CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. v. WILSON et ux.^†

(No. 1453.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

May 1, 1915.

Rehearing Denied May 13, 1915.

Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; W. M. Pick, Judge.

Action by Turner Wilson and wife against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs against defendant named, it appeals. Affirmed, and motions for rehearing and to certify a question to the Supreme Court overruled.

T. B. McCormick, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Etheridge, McCormick & Bromberg, of Dallas, for appellant. McReynolds & Hay, of Sherman, and John C. Wall, of Austin, for appellees.

WILLSON, C. J.

This was a suit by appellees Turner Wilson and Mrs. Clara Wilson, his wife, against appellant and appellees Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company and Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. Mrs. Wilson, while a passenger on one of appellant's trains, accidentally left a diamond brooch in the dining car of the train. The suit was to recover the value of the brooch, which she and her husband alleged was stolen by an employé or employés of appellant in charge of the car, or lost therein as the result of negligence on their part. Said appellees Wilson and wife dismissed their suit so far as it was against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company. The court peremptorily instructed the jury to find in favor of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. On an issue as to the liability of appellant, as claimed by Wilson and wife, the finding was in their favor. The appeal is from a judgment against appellant for the sum of $1,000, which the jury found to be the value of the brooch.

After defining "negligence," "ordinary care," "contributory negligence," and "proximate cause," the court instructed the jury as follows:

"Now bearing in mind the foregoing definitions, if you believe from the evidence that plaintiff Mrs. Clara Wilson was, on or about the 8th day of July, 1913, a passenger on a passenger train of defendant Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company between Kansas City, Mo., and Omaha, Neb.; and if you further believe from the evidence that she carried with her in her purse inside of a handbag a brooch or pin set with a diamond, and that after going from the sleeper to the dining car of the train for lunch she started to return from said dining car to said sleeper; and if you further believe from the evidence that said handbag came open while in said defendant's dining car, and that said brooch was lost in said dining car; and if you further believe from the evidence that she went to the sleeper and later found that said brooch had been lost, and that she then returned to said dining car, and that she notified said defendant of the loss of said brooch, and requested that a search of said dining car be made for same, but that defendant failed to make such search, and that because of such failure, if any, to search, said brooch was lost or stolen by some of defendant's employés; and if you further believe from the evidence that defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to make said search of said dining car, and that such failure, if any, was `negligence,' as that term has hereinbefore been defined, and that such negligence, if any, was the direct and proximate cause of the loss of said brooch, if it was lost in said dining car; and if you further believe from the evidence that said Mrs. Clara Wilson was herself exercising `ordinary care' as that term has been defined to you, when said brooch was lost, if it was — then you will find in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, and assess their damages as hereinafter instructed, unless you find for defendant under other instructions given you."

It appears from the record that before the charge was read to the jury the portion of it set out above was objected to on grounds stated in the record as follows:

"Said charge is upon the weight of the evidence in assuming that while in the dining car the brooch was still in her hand bag, and if her hand bag became open in the dining car the inner purse and brooch was lost at that time.

"Said charge makes the failure of the defendant to make a search upon the demand of the plaintiff an occasion of fixing liability upon itself, irrespective of any duty or negligent failure to perform a duty.

"Said charge makes the failure to make a search by the defendant, coupled with a resulting theft of the brooch by some of defendant's employés and a failure to return the brooch to her, the ground of liability for her loss, irrespective of any negligence on its part, and irrespective of any duty the defendant owed her to make a search or to find and restore her brooch to her."

It does not appear from anything in the record that appellant excepted to the action of the...