Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Bernard
| Decision Date | 20 June 1900 |
| Citation | 57 S.W. 686 |
| Parties | GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. v. BERNARD. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Medina county; I. L. Martin, Judge.
Action by James A. Bernard against the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company for damages. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. On motion for rehearing. Judgment affirmed on entry of remittitur by clerk of court of the damages recovered.
Baker, Botts, Baker & Lovett and Walter Gillis, for appellant. Ed De Montel, S. B Easley, H. C. Carter, and Perry J. Lewis, for appellee.
This suit was brought by appellee against appellant to recover the sum of $40,000 damages for personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon him by the negligence of appellant. The defendant pleaded general denial, assumed risk, and contributory negligence. The trial of the case resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee for $25,000. The evidence is sufficient to show that appellee, while in the employ of appellant as a switchman, in endeavoring to make a coupling was by the negligence of appellant, without any negligence on his part, so injured as to render necessary the amputation of his leg above the knee, and that he was damaged by the injury thus inflicted in the sum of $16,000. The only assignments of error complain of the refusal of the court to grant appellant's application for a change of venue, and of the excessiveness of the verdict. We have concluded that we erred in our original opinion in holding that, upon the issue raised in the application for change of venue, the burden was upon plaintiff to show that the grounds upon which the application was made did not exist. Having come to the conclusion that the burden was upon the applicant to prove the facts alleged in its application for a change of venue, we are not prepared to say that the trial court, with the evidence before it, erred in refusing the application. But we are of the opinion that the verdict is grossly excessive, and that a new trial should have been granted for that reason. This error, however, can be cured by a remittitur, and if the appellee will, within 10 days from this date, enter a remittitur in this court of $9,000, the judgment will be affirmed; otherwise, it will be reversed, and the cause remanded. Our original opinion is withdrawn.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Mcmichael
-
St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Hays
... ... have been declared excessive: Cotton Oil Co. v ... Beacham, 31 Okla. 384, 120 P. 969; Galveston, etc., ... v. Bernard, 57 S.W. 686; I. & G. N. R. R. Co. v ... Brice, 126 S.W. 613; Kennon v. Gilmer, 9 Mont ... 109, 22 P. 448; Aluminum Co. v ... ...
-
Indep. Cotton Oil Co. v. Beacham
...from the magnitude of the verdict, and many courts have set aside verdicts as excessive upon no other evidence. G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Bernard (Tex. Civ. App.) 57 S.W. 686; Sorenson v. Oregon Power Co., 47 Ore. 24, 82 P. 10; Melse v. A. C. Co., 42 Wash. 356, 84 P. 1127; Newcomb v. N.Y. C......
-
Independent Cotton Oil Co. v. Beacham
... ... aside verdicts as excessive upon no other evidence. G., ... H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Bernard (Tex. Civ. App.) 57 S.W ... 686; Sorenson v. Oregon Power Co., 47 Or. 24, 82 P ... 10; Melse v. A. C. Co., 42 Wash. 356, 84 P. 1127; ... Newcomb ... ...