Freeman v. Nathan
Citation | 149 S.W. 248 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Decision Date | 08 May 1912 |
Parties | FREEMAN v. NATHAN et al.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from District Court, Falls County; Richard I. Munroe, Judge.
Action by I. J. Nathan and others against T. J. Freeman, receiver of the International & Great Northern Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Appellee I. J. Nathan brought this suit against T. J. Freeman, as receiver of the International & Great Northern Railroad Company, to recover for the destruction by fire of the plaintiff's electric light and ice plant and stock of supplies in connection therewith, in the city of Marlin, Tex., on September 17, 1909. The fire was alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the receiver, which was denied in the defendant's answer, wherein it was alleged as a defense that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Five insurance companies intervened and claimed the right to recover against the defendant, on account of having been compelled to pay certain policies of insurance upon the property referred to. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff and the interveners for $21,000, and the defendant has brought the case to this court for revision.
Omitting certain formal parts, the judge instructed the jury as follows:
"You are instructed that the defendant receiver, in running trains over the road of which he is receiver, is required to exercise ordinary care to equip the engine or locomotive drawing such train with the most approved appliances in general use to prevent the escape of sparks, cinders, and coals therefrom, and to exercise ordinary care to keep such appliances in repair and properly fitted and adjusted, and to exercise ordinary care to keep the land included within the right of way sufficiently free of inflammable grass, weeds, and other matter as to prevent the same catching fire from sparks, cinders, or coals escaping from passing engines, and communicating such fire to adjacent property, and to exercise ordinary care in respect to the wetting of the fuel used in such engines if in the exercise of ordinary care such fuel should be wetted, and to exercise ordinary care in respect of the emptying of the ash pan of such engine, if in the exercise of ordinary care such ash pan should be emptied, to prevent the escape of sparks, cinders, or coals from such engine. And the defendant receiver, if liable for damages from fires directly and proximately caused by his negligent failure to exercise such ordinary (care) in any of the respects above named, unless, however, the person or persons sustaining such damage have been guilty of contributory negligence, as hereinafter defined. But when the defendant receiver has exercised such ordinary care in each of the respects above named, he has complied with the requirements of the law, and is not liable for any damage from any
fires set out by said engines; nor is he liable for any such damage, when the person or persons sustaining such damage have been guilty of contributory negligence as hereinafter defined.
property is currently bought and sold in the market.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Independent Eastern Torpedo Co. v. Carter
...plaintiff in error to the party injured and legal non-performance of that duty." As well said by Chief Justice Key in Freeman v. Nathan, Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W. 248, 254: "Negligence is not the mere failure to act with ordinary prudence. Such failure alone never can give rise to a cause of a......
-
Arey v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas
...view, as we think, in this jurisdiction, are Railway Co. v. Johnson, 51 S. W. 531; Railway Co. v. Hardware Co., 157 S. W. 1188; Freeman v. Nathan, 149 S. W. 248. In Railway Co. v. Johnson, supra, where an infant was lying in a cradle in its parents' house adjoining the right of way, sparks ......
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. New Boston Hardware Co.
...its legal rights in this respect the law does not impose upon appellee any duty to anticipate the negligence of the appellant. Freeman v. Nathan, 149 S. W. 248, and authorities there referred to support the proposition here, we think. Thompson on Negligence, § 2314. As appellee in the lawfu......
-
Freeman v. Peacock
...and Baker & Baker, of Waco, for appellant. E. W. Bounds, of Marlin, for appellee. JENKINS, J. This is a companion case to Freeman v. Nathan, 149 S. W. 248, this day decided by this court. The fire that destroyed appellee's building was communicated from the buildings of Nathan. The cases we......