Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Hopkins

Citation202 S.W. 222
Decision Date06 March 1918
Docket Number(No. 5982.)
PartiesGALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. v. HOPKINS.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; R. B. Minor, Judge.

Suit by Norville L. Hopkins against the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, and Templeton, Brooks, Napier & Ogden and Ed. W. Smith, all of San Antonio, for appellant. H. C. Carter, Champe G. Carter, Randolph L. Carter, and Perry J. Lewis, all of San Antonio, for appellee.

FLY, C. J.

Appellee instituted this suit to recover damages from appellant incurred from injuries inflicted on him, while in the service of appellant as a switchman, by reason of a sill step giving way when he endeavored to get on a moving car. Appellant admitted that the step gave way and threw appellee under the car, and that this foot was so injured that it was amputated, but denied other injuries. Appellant claimed that it had exercised all practicable means to have the step in a safe and secure condition. The cause was tried by jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for appellee in the sum of $20.000.

The three first assignments of error are devoted to the claim that the verdict is excessive, and are overruled. The evidence shows that the step gave way, and that appellee's right foot slipped to the ground; that it was caught by the car wheels and so crushed that it had to be amputated. Three other amputations became absolutely necessary and were performed, the last one about one month before the trial. Appellee not only lost his right leg just below the knee, but the lower end of his spine was injured, causing great pain throughout the length of the spine up to the back of the head; his bladder and kidneys were greatly affected, so as to cause a slow loss of urine constantly; his heart was affected so as to have a rapid and weak action, with indications of organic trouble. In addition, his right knee was so injured that the lubricating oil, or synovia, was destroyed, and when used it made a grating sound. The operations were performed by the physicians of appellant, and they treated him for his other injuries. Appellee is subject to dizziness since his injury, and his health is permanently impaired, and he has suffered great agony since March 21, 1916, when he was hurt, and will always be a sufferer. He spent many weeks in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Ott
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1925
    ... ... 461; Hurst v. C. B. & Q. R. R ... Co., 219 S.W. 566; Halloran v. New England, T. & T ... Co., 115 A. 143; examples are presented in Hopkins ... v. New Orleans Co., 90 So. 512; Padrick v. Ry ... Co., 150 N.W. 807 and cases cited therein; instruction ... numbered 9 is a correct ... ...
  • Sallee v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1928
    ...not violated, no limitation is placed by public policy or the law upon the amount and award of damages for personal injuries. Galveston Co. v. Hopkins, 202 S.W. 222; v. Union E., L. & P. Co., 279 Mo. 605; Bond v. Railway Co., 288 S.W. 777; Varley v. Taxicab Co., 240 S.W. 218. Seddon, C. Lin......
  • Sallee v. St. L.-S.F. Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1928
    ...not violated, no limitation is placed by public policy or the law upon the amount and award of damages for personal injuries. Galveston Co. v. Hopkins, 202 S.W. 222; Meager v. Union E., L. & P. Co., 279 Mo. 605; Bond v. Railway Co., 288 S.W. 777; Varley v. Taxicab Co., 240 S.W. SEDDON, C. P......
  • American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Denke
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 16, 1933
    ...limb. Under the circumstances, we do not think that a judgment of $20,000 in his behalf is excessive. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Hopkins (Tex. Civ. App.) 202 S. W. 222; Wichita Falls R. & Ft. W. R. Co. v. Combs (Tex. Civ. App.) 250 S. W. 714; St. Louis S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v. Wilson (Te......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT