Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. Hanks
Decision Date | 31 May 1911 |
Citation | 137 S.W. 1120 |
Parties | FARMERS' & MECHANICS' NAT. BANK v. HANKS et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by W. T. Hanks and another against the Farmers' & Mechanics' National Bank. There was a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (128 S. W. 147) affirming a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Reversed and rendered.
Lassiter & Harrison and Harris & Harris, for plaintiff in error. Carlock & McLean, B. D. Shropshire, and Capps, Cantey, Hanger & Short, for defendants in error.
The facts out of which this litigation arose are thus stated by the Court of Civil Appeals for the Sixth Supreme Judicial District:
There are a number of interesting questions for review, but it will, under our construction of our statute, as applied to the facts, be unnecessary to notice or discuss but one question. That question is, Is a private owner of a building liable for damages where death ensues caused by the negligence of its servant in the operation of a passenger elevator? If not, then under no view that can be taken of the case could a recovery be sustained. A decision of this question involves a construction of article 3017 of our Revised Statutes of 1895. That article, so far as it can affect this case, is as follows: "An action for actual damages on account of injuries causing the death of any person may be brought in the following cases: (1) Where the death of any person is caused by the negligence or carelessness of the proprietor, owner, charterer, hirer of any railroad, steamboat, stagecoach, or other vehicle for the conveyance of goods or passengers." So much of the statute as we have quoted above was enacted in this state in 1860, and in the later acts has been brought forward substantially unchanged.
In order to obtain a correct interpretation of this act, it may be well to recur to former holdings of this court, as well as to the just and settled rules of construction, which must and should guide us. It was long ago settled in this state that the right to recover, when death ensued, did not exist, in this character of case, at common law (Hendrick v. Walton, 69 Tex. 192, 6 S. W. 749), and that the right to recover in such case is wholly statutory (Nelson v. G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 78 Tex. 624, 14 S. W. 1021, 11 L. R. A. 391, 22 Am. St. Rep. 81; Yoakum v. Selph, 83 Tex. 607, 19 S. W. 145). In the case of G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Le Gierse, 51 Tex. 189, it was said: "The right to such an action in our courts being,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Russell v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
...of action may be brought for the death of another person. Rose v. Doctors Hosp., 801 S.W.2d at 845; Farmers & Mechanics' Nat'l Bank v. Hanks, 104 Tex. 320, 137 S.W. 1120, 1122 (1911). As initially passed, our Wrongful Death Statute provided in Sec. 1. [W]hensoever the death of any person ma......
-
Dallas Market Center Development Co. v. Liedeker
...is to exercise ordinary care). The court of appeals did not cite Triangle Motors, relying instead on Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat'l Bank v. Hanks, 104 Tex. 320, 137 S.W. 1120, 1124 (1911), which states in dicta that an elevator owner "should be held liable to a very high degree of care in resp......
-
Cain v. Bowlby
...had no application where death was caused by falling through a hole in a railroad bridge or trestle. And Farmers' & Mechanics' National Bank v. Hanks, 104 Tex. 320, 137 S.W. 1120, Ann.Cas.1914B, 368, is clearly distinguishable. There the court held that a statute providing that an action co......
-
Reed v. Wylie
...138 Tex. 636, 161 S.W.2d 478 (1942); Shook v. All Texas Racing Assn., 128 Tex. 384, 97 S.W.2d 669 (1936); Farmers' and Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. Hanks, 104 Tex. 320, 137 S.W. 1120 (1911); Clynch v. Bowers, 164 S.W.2d 768 (Tex.Civ.App.1942, no writ); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Scruggs, 277 S.W. ......