Coleman v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 14335
| Decision Date | 15 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 14335,14335 |
| Citation | 241 S.W.2d 308 |
| Parties | COLEMAN et al. v. TEXAS & PAC. RY. CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Sidney E. Dawson, Dallas, for appellants.
Robertson, Jackson, Payne, Lancaster & Walker, Donald C. Fitch, Jr., J. T. Suggs, D. L. Case, J. L. Lancaster, Jr., all of Dallas, for appellee.
The suit in trial court was for damages growing out of injuries allegedly sustained by Anna Coleman while attempting to alight from one of appellee's passenger coaches at Union Station, Dallas. Upon defendant's judgment based on a jury verdict, this appeal is taken.
Answer of the jury was 'No,' to the primary issue submitted of whether Anna Coleman was heavily laden with parcels as she was alighting from aforesaid coach. Further answers were that she failed on the occasion in question to keep a proper lookout for her own safety, which was a proximate cause of injury; that her act of carrying a suitcase in front of her on alighting, if she was, constituted negligence and a proximately contributing cause of injury; that plaintiff's fall was not the result of an unavoidable accident; that her failure to request assistance on alighting was negligence proximately contributing to injury. Damage assessed under pleading and proof was $355.
Above findings would appear to finally acquit the defendant of all liability; appellant however bringing forward a claim of errors occurring in course of trial with prejudicial effect on her right of recovery. These contentions relate to rulings of the trial court, '(1) in excluding from the jury over the objection of the appellants consistent statements made by Anna Coleman, appellant, after appellee on cross-examination charged her with fabricating her testimony; (2) in presenting to the jury over the objection of appellants affirmative defensive issues not plead and set up in the answer of the appellee to appellants' petition; (3) in not granting appellants' motion for a new trial after the attorney for appellee in his closing argument to the jury made statements and declarations to them that were outside of the record and prejudicial to the rights of appellants.'
At the time (April 2, 1949), Anna Coleman, age 30, height 5 10 , weight some 170 1bs., in good health, had been a farepaying passenger from Jefferson to Dallas; testifying that in process of getting off said train at regular place of debarkation, she was encumbered as follows: Carrying parasol and shopping bag by straps on left forearm, purse with strap over left wrist, holding same with fingers of left hand, a large suitcase in right hand; that on account of the narrow steps, suitcase was being held in front, obscuring her view in going down; that she was thereby caused to miss the bottom step, falling heavily to platform on right side, sustaining injuries; with train conductor and porter nowhere near to render assistance in alighting. These trainmen testified to being at either the same exit or that of adjacent coach; that Anna Coleman did not ask for assistance and was not carrying a suitcase at the time; appellee's counsel in course of examination of plaintiff endeavoring to show by absence of dents or scuff marks that the suitcase (produced in court) had not been involved in a fall. On rebuttal plaintiff sought to prove that after her fall she had told her husband on meeting him at the station and Viola Clark after reaching home, also the doctor next day, that she had the suitcase in hand when getting off the train. Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls
...Pepper, 134 Tex. 360, 135 S.W.2d 79 (1940); Fox v. Dallas Hotel Co., 111 Tex. 461, 240 S.W. 517 (1922); Coleman v. Texas & Pac. Ry., 241 S.W.2d 308 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1951, writ ref'd); Weidmer v. Stott, 48 S.W.2d 389 (Tex.Civ.App. Ft. Worth 1932, writ Burk Royalty's other points of error......
-
Royal v. Cameron
...(Tex.Civ.App.) 126 S.W.2d 578, dism.judgm.corr.; Radford v. Hill, (Tex.Civ.App.) 185 S.W.2d 129, ref. w. m.; Coleman v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., (Tex.Civ.App.) 241 S.W.2d 308, writ ref.; the Coleman case is squarely in point. Finding no error in the Court's action, we overrule Point 13. $Now w......
-
Yeager Elec. & Plumbing, Inc. v. Ingleside Cove Lumber & Builders, Inc.
...877 (Tex.Sup.1954); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Jeanes, 88 Tex. 230, 31 S.W. 186 (Tex.Sup.1895); Coleman v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 241 S.W.2d 308 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1951, writ ref'd); Barber v. Corpus Christi Bank & Trust, 506 S.W.2d 254 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1974, no writ); Houser ......
-
Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Kennedy
...Younger Bros. v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 780; El Paso City Lines v. Prieto, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W.2d 59; Coleman v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 241 S.W.2d 308; Texas Employers' Ins.Ass'n v. Logsdon, Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W.2d 893. Appellant's second point is By its third po......