Detro v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co.
Decision Date | 23 March 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 70.) |
Citation | 188 S.W. 517 |
Parties | DETRO v. GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Montgomery County; L. B. Hightower, Judge.
Suit by C. L. Detro against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
C. W. Nugent, of Houston, and C. A. Toler, of Conroe, for appellant. F. J. & C. T. Duff, of Beaumont, and W. N. Foster, of Conroe, for appellee.
This suit was filed in the district court of Montgomery county Tex., by the appellant, C. L. Detro, against the appellee, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company, for damages for injuries received while an employé of the appellee, riding on one of the engines of the appellee, with the authority and permission of the appellee, and in the discharge of the general duties of appellant, he alleging that his injuries were caused by being struck on the head by a timber or some other hard substance suspended from the top or fastened to the side of appellee's bridge over Trinity river, alleging that said timber or hard substance had been negligently and carelessly left in its position by the agents, servants, and employés of appellee railway company, and that as a result of said negligence, without fault on appellant's part, appellant was seriously and permanently injured.
Appellee answered by general demurrer and general denial, and further that settlement had been had with appellant, also that if the appellant was injured in the way and manner claimed, that the injuries were the result of his own negligence in the way and manner in which he was riding upon the engine at the time, in that he was leaning out of the same, and was guilty of contributory negligence, which was the cause of his injury.
Said cause was tried before a jury up to the conclusion of all of the testimony, at which time the court peremptorily instructed the jury to return a verdict for defendant, which was accordingly done. Motion for new trial was seasonably filed, by appellant, and was by the court overruled, and the cause is now before this court for revision.
The undisputed facts show appellant to have been on the engine of the defendant company at the time he was injured, by special permit of the company. He was division lineman for the defendant company, and it was his duty to keep up the company's telegraph wires from Beaumont to Somerville, and he was permitted to ride on the company's engine, because he could better view the telegraph wires from the engine cab, and could also communicate with the engineer readily if it became necessary for him to stop and get off to repair the telegraph wires. He was injured very seriously by something striking him in the forehead while the train was passing over Trinity river bridge, his skull being crushed in, and he was knocked back on the deck between the engine cab and the tender. He was in the performance of his duty as such lineman when he was injured.
Appellant's first and second assignments of error complain of the action of the trial court in peremptorily instructing a verdict for the defendant, asserting that the evidence was sufficient to raise the issue of negligence on the part of appellee; and, such being true, it was for the jury to determine whether the railroad company was negligent.
Article 1, § 15, of our Constitution provides that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. Our Supreme Court and our Courts of Civil Appeals have continuously held that it is the province of the jury to determine questions of fact. Choate v. Railway Co., 91 Tex. 409, 44 S. W. 69; Thomas v. Morrison, 92 Tex. 333, 48 S. W. 501; Burgess v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 92 Tex. 125, 46 S. W. 795, 71 Am. St. Rep. 833.
Mr. Greenleaf, in his work on Evidence, says:
"Whether there be any evidence or not is a question for the judge; whether it is sufficient evidence is for the jury."
We quote so much of the testimony as is pertinent to this issue.
The plaintiff testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Gibson, 1910.
...593; Reeves Furniture Co. v. Simms (Tex.Civ. App.) 59 S.W.2d 262; Buckler v. Kneezell (Tex.Civ.App.) 91 S.W. 367; Detro v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 188 S.W. 517; Brewer v. Cochran, 45 Tex. Civ.App. 179, 99 S.W. There is no contention made that the rental contract for 1936 was......
-
HL & P v. Auchan USA, Inc.
...for the proposition that a jury trial on reasonableness was required. See Calarco, 725 S.W.2d at 306-07 (citing Detro v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R.R., 188 S.W. 517, 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1916, no writ); Burnett v. Fort Worth Light & Power Co., 117 S.W. 175, 176 (Tex. Civ. App. 1908......
-
Calarco v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 01-85-0992-CV
...as a matter of law, that Bell's liability should be limited to the maximum amount set forth in the tariff. See Detro v. Gulf, Colorado. & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 188 S.W. 517, 518 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1916, no writ); Burnett v. Fort Worth Light & Power Co., 117 S.W. 175, 176 (Tex.Civ.App.......