Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Viney
| Decision Date | 20 February 1895 |
| Citation | 30 S.W. 252 |
| Parties | FT. WORTH & D. C. RY. CO. v. VINEY. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Action by J. R. Viney against Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries to plaintiff's wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Stanley, Spoonts & Meek, for plaintiff in error. Carswell & Woody and Carter & Lewright, for defendant in error.
On January 2, 1892, defendant in error, with his wife and two children, one two years and the other three months old, were passengers on plaintiff in error's train, going from Wichita Falls to Sunset, Tex. The train was five or six hours late, and arrived at Sunset about 10 o'clock at night, where it only remained a few seconds, if, indeed, it came to a full stop at all. Defendant in error succeeded in alighting with his two children at the depot, but, before his wife could leave the car, the train again started, and, after it had gone between 75 and 100 yards, it again slowed up, and she, in attempting to get off while it was still in motion, was thrown upon the ground, and received the injuries to recover for which this suit was instituted. Under the evidence, we do not find the verdict excessive in amount. We also think the evidence sufficient to sustain the finding that defendant in error's wife was not guilty of contributory negligence in leaving the car at the time and under the circumstances she did. She was about to be carried away from a three months old baby, and was told by the brakeman to "jump quick," before the train got faster. That plaintiff in error was guilty of negligence in failing to stop the cars a reasonable time to allow its passengers to alight with safety there can be no question from the evidence.
We do not find the following charge subject to the objection that it is upon the weight of the evidence, viz.: "It is the duty of the employés or agents of the railway company in charge of a passenger train with passengers thereon to stop the train at stations for a sufficient length of time to give passengers on such trains, desiring to leave the same at such stations, a reasonable opportunity to get off the same with safety; and a failure to do so is negligence on the part of the company, from which, if injury result to the passenger, without negligence on the part of the passenger, the company is liable." We regard this charge as a very clear and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Barham
...& S. A. R. Co. v. Duelm, 86 Tex. 450, 25 S.W. 406; Pecos & N. T. R. Co. v. Winkler, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W. 691; Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Viney, Tex.Civ.App., 30 S.W. 252; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Pereira, Tex.Civ. App., 45 S.W. 767; Wheeler v. Tyler S. E. R. Co., 91 Tex. 356, 43 S.W. 8......
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Herbert
...way vitiated thereby. Railway v. Overton (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S. W. 165; Railway v. Measles, 81 Tex. 474, 17 S. W. 124; Railway v. Viney (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S. W. 252; Arnold v. Williams, 21 Tex. 413; McDonald v. Grey, 29 Tex. 89; Chrisman v. Davenport et al., 21 Tex. 483; Howe v. Merrill, 3......
-
Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Grabner
...Co. v. Warren, 90 Tex. 566, 40 S. W. 6; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Bellew, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 264, 54 S. W. 1079; Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Viney (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S. W. 252; St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Haynes (Tex. Civ. App.) 86 S. W. It may be thought that G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wesch,......
-
Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Keith
...S. W. 711; Railway v. Jackson, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 205, 85 S. W. 445; Mills v. Railway, 94 Tex. 242, 59 S. W. 874, 55 L. R. A. 497; Railway v. Viney, 30 S. W. 252; 3 Hutchinson on Carriers (3d Ed.) § Error is also assigned to the testimony of a number of witnesses, to the effect that it had b......