Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Stalcup
Decision Date | 11 April 1914 |
Docket Number | (No. 599.) |
Citation | 167 S.W. 279 |
Parties | FT. WORTH & D. C. RY. CO. v. STALCUP. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallam County; D. B. Hill, Judge.
Action by R. E. Stalcup, administrator, against the Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Company and another. Dismissed as to the other defendant before judgment, judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Company appeals. Affirmed.
Thompson & Barwise, of Ft. Worth, Clifford Braly, of Dalhart, and W. B. Chauncey, of Wichita Falls, for appellant. R. E. Stalcup, of Dalhart, Del W. Harrington, of Amarillo, Goree & Turner and Cowan & Burney, all of Ft. Worth, for appellee.
The appellee, R. E. Stalcup, as administrator of the estate of J. E. Brown, deceased, brought suit for recovery of damages occasioned by the death of J. E. Brown, who in March, 1911, lost his life while engaged in the service of the appellant, as brakeman in the switchyards at Texline, Tex. The trial resulted in a verdict for the appellee in the sum of $7,500.
It is alleged in the petition that J. E. Brown, deceased, was violently thrown from the cars of appellant by reason of the negligence of appellant in the following particulars, to wit:
The ground (a) set out in the pleadings was not submitted to the jury as an issue by the trial court, but only the ground set out under (b). The facts in this case show that Brown was a brakeman in the employ of appellant company, and that the train crew with which he was working at the time the accident occurred was composed of Gaynor, conductor, O'Nell, brakeman, Thompson, engineer, and Shaw, fireman; that they were doing the work of switching incident to making up a train which they were to carry out that night at 9 o'clock to Trinidad, Colo. This train was partially made up, and was standing on what is designated in the record as the passing track. Just prior to the accident Brown and his crew took the engine and went down to a side track just west of the main line, known in the record as track No. 1, to get a cut of 32 cars, the rear 6 of which, and probably others, were going into the train they were making up. The accident happened while the crew were handling this string of 32 cars, and the evidence in this case relates to what was done from the time the crew picked up this string of cars 3,000 feet south of where the accident occurred. The evidence shows that this string of cars was pulled north until the last, the thirty-second car, had passed the switch, about two or three car lengths by which the passing track was reached, designated as "A" on the map in the record, and located about 20 feet south of the most southern water tank shown on the map. While this string of cars was being moved north from the starting point, Gaynor and O'Nell and Brown rode on the rear or thirty-second car until they reached the switch stand, marked "C" on the map, which was the switch to track No. 1, and there Gaynor got off to throw that switch so that certain of the cars could be kicked back on that track. O'Nell rode on up until he got to switch A, where he got off to throw that switch so that the rear of these cars could be kicked in onto the passing track. Brown remained on top of the thirty-second car for the purpose of riding this cut of 6 cars down onto the passing track, where they were to be coupled onto the partially made up train. The accident occurred after the rear or thirty-second car had cleared switch A, and Brown's body after the accident was found lying under the front trucks of the thirty-first car on the east side of the track, and opposite and a little north of the north water tank. Each of appellant's witnesses testified that they did not notice anything unusual or out of the ordinary in any movement of the train from the time they picked up this string of 32 cars until the accident occurred, either as to speed or as to any stop that was made; that the switching in every particular was done in the usual and customary manner; that there was always more or less jarring of the cars in switching, caused by the running up of the slack; and that there was from 8 to 12 inches of slack between all freight cars. All the train crew knew the work that was to be done and the cars that were to be handled and switched in on the passing track.
Gaynor, the conductor, testified that when the accident occurred he was somewhere between switch A and B; that he was unable to determine his exact location, but that he was about 5 or 6 car lengths from the rear end of the string of 32 cars; that he walked over there from switch C, where he got off, and that it was about 1½ minutes after he got off at switch C until the accident occurred. He testified that Brown was nearly dead when he got to him, and tried to talk, but could not. The wheels ran over him just about the abdomen. "The last time I saw Brown after I got off the car he was on the rear car about the center, and was standing up." He stated further:
"When I went back from the depot to the place where the accident occurred, I investigated to find out as to how Brown came to fall, and after this examination I never did make up my mind or find out how Brown happened to this accident."
He further testified as to the condition of the pawl on the brake:
"From my association with him, Brown, as a trainman, conductor, or brakeman, I would say, as to his capabilities as to a brakeman or conductor, there could not have been any better."
O'Nell testified:
That the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ward v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co
... ... McDade , 191 U.S. 64, 24 S.Ct. 24, 48 L.Ed. 96; ... Saar v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. , ... 97 Kan. 441, 155 P. 954; Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co ... v. Stalcup , Tex. Civ. App., 167 S.W. 279; ... Devine v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. , 266 ... Ill. 248, 107 N.E. 595, ... ...
-
Allen v. Riedel
...Co. v. Cowser, 57 Tex. (293) 297, 304; (Texas Mexico) Ry. Co. v. Douglas, 73 Tex. 325, 11 S.W. 333 * * *.' Ft. Worth & D.C. Ry. Co. v. Stalcup, Tex.Civ.App., 167 S.W. 279, 286 (WR). See also 25A C.J.S. Death § 102, p. 929. Declarations of deceased showing his feelings toward the plaintiffs ......
-
Wichita Falls Traction Co. v. Elliott
...McCray v. G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co., supra; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Horne, 69 Tex. 643, 9 S. W. 440; Fort Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Stalcup (Tex. Civ. App.) 167 S. W. 279 (writ refused); Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Suggs, 62 Tex. 323; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.) 116 S......
-
Baush Mach. Tool Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 480.
...within the discretion of the trial judge. Gilberson v. Miller Mining & Smelting Co., 4 Utah, 46, 5 P. 699; Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Stalcup (Tex. Civ. App.) 167 S. W. 279; Gallagher v. Town of Buckley, 31 Wash. 380, 72 P. 79; Mahoney v. Dixon, 34 Mont. 454, 87 P. 452; Boltz v. Town of S......