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

• Decision Date: 06 March 1907
• Citation: 100 S.W. 993
• Parties: GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. v. YOUNG.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

100 S.W. 993

GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. v. YOUNG.^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 6, 1907.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1907.

Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; J. L. Camp, Judge.

Action by Franklin E. Young against the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, Newton & Ward, and W. B. Teagarden, for appellant. John H. Clark, for appellee.

FLY, J.

Appellee instituted this suit, alleging that he had received personal injuries through the negligence of appellant in placing too many cars in one train that a sudden violent jerk was given, whereby a weak and defective coupling gave way, and the train was parted and appellee thrown to the roadbed, and seriously and permanently injured. Appellant filed general and special demurrers, a general denial, pleas of contributory negligence, and due inspection, and that the accident had not been caused by any negligence on its part. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee for $15,000.

It appears from the evidence that appellee was a passenger on a train, going from San Antonio to Flatonia; that when the train neared Sandy Fork, a siding about 15 miles west of Flatonia, it began stopping to permit several passengers to alight, and while it was moving very slowly, appellee started through the vestibule between the chair car and a smoking car just ahead of it, and the two cars parted with a tremendous jerk, and appellee was thrown to the ground and permanently injured. We find that the parting of the cars occurred through the negligence of appellant. It appeared from the evidence that the parting of the train occurred by reason of the fracture of a part of the automatic coupler known as the "tongue" which fastens the coupler. It is a piece of metal hinged to the knuckle or automatic coupler by a pin. The broken tongue was taken by the employés of appellant to Glidden, and placed in the hands of the car repairers, and was not produced in court, although notice was served on appellant to produce it. The witnesses for appellant, its employés, were the only ones who testified in regard to the condition of the tongue, and their testimony tended to show that there was a flaw, or hollow, or hole, in the tongue that was not visible from the outside and that the break in the metal occurred at that point. There was no evidence of an inspection of the tongue on the part of appellant. There was evidence, from at least one witness, that he had examined about a dozen broken tongues during the seven years he had worked for appellant. The tongue in this case was a cast iron, and whether it was as originally constructed, or had been broken and mended by appellant's car repairers was not shown. No experts in the matter of the construction of machinery were introduced, the witnesses who testified about the coupler being engineers, conductors, and brakemen. The evidence did not indicate that they knew anything about the manufacture of machinery. The train on which appellee was riding, when hurt, was a very heavy one—there being 12 coaches—and two engines were required to pull it. When the train parted, the air brakes were automatically thrown on by the parting of the air hose. It was what is known as an "emergency application of air," and there was testimony to show that when a train is moving, as was the one in question, the application should stop it at once. What is known as "service application of air" was on already, and the train was stopping by reason of it when the break came. The engineer on the head engine swore: That if the train was standing still the going on of the emergency brakes would have no effect on the train, and if it was going slow there would not be a hard jar, but it would stop the train instantly and have very slight effect on the cars. That witness, as well as others, swore that the train was barely moving—had practically stopped when the break occurred—and that the application of the emergency brakes would have the effect of stopping the cars instantly, and that it would not throw the cars back or forward. That the stopping would merely cause a jar. In this instance, however, when the break occurred, and emergency air went on the cars stopped from 10 to 20 feet apart. If the evidence of appellant's witnesses be true there must have been some extraordinary antagonistic force to overcome the power of the...