Fordyce v. Dillingham

• Decision Date: 05 September 1893
• Citation: 23 S.W. 550
• Parties: FORDYCE et al. v. DILLINGHAM.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

23 S.W. 550

FORDYCE et al. v. DILLINGHAM.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

September 5, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Henderson county; F. A. Williams, Judge.

Action by Mrs. M. V. Dillingham against S. W. Fordyce and A. H. Swanson, receivers of the St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railway Company, for damages for personal injuries caused by negligence of defendants' servants. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Clark, Dyer & Bolinger and Sam H. West, for appellants. Richardson & Watkins, for appellee.

Conclusions of Fact.

RAINEY, J.

Mrs. M. V. Dillingham boarded the train of appellants as a passenger, with her four children, all under the age of six years, at Winona, to be transported to Brownsboro, a station on defendants' road. On reaching Brownsboro, the station was called out, but the train failed to stop long enough for her to alight with safety. After the train pulled out the conductor saw that she had not gotten off. He stopped the train about 600 yards from the station, and requested her to get off, which she did, and walked back with her children, carrying one in her arms to the station, where she found shelter in the depot. This occurred about 5 o'clock on a cold morning in December. She got off at a place where the ground was wet, and she suffered physical pain from the cold and walk, and mental anguish from her embarrassing situation. At the time the train passed Brownsboro she had friends waiting to take her to her destination in the country, but, when she failed to get off, her friends, supposing she had not come, went home, causing her to be detained at the station several hours before she could get away. The injury sustained was caused by the negligence of appellants' servants.

Conclusions of Law.

Two errors are assigned, in substance that there is not sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and that the verdict is excessive. While there is a conflict in the evidence, there is sufficient to show that there was negligence on the part of the appellants in not stopping the train long enough for Mrs. Dillingham to alight, and in having her leave the train where she did. Under the circumstances, the train should have been backed to the station. The jury having passed upon the evidence, and there being sufficient to support the verdict, it will not be disturbed. It seems that the jury believed the testimony adduced by plaintiff, which, if true, was ample to warrant the damages assessed. The judgment of the court...