Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Farmer
| Decision Date | 26 February 1889 |
| Citation | 11 S.W. 156 |
| Parties | GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. <I>v.</I> FARMER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Brown & Dunn, for appellant. Foard, Thompson & Townsend, for appellee.
This was an action for personal injuries brought by appellee against appellant. The appellee was a brakeman on a freight train of the appellant company, and, having reached the station at Columbus, it became his duty to make the coupling of certain cars which were standing there, and which were ordered to be incorporated into the train. One of these cars was laden with lumber, and it is claimed that it was negligently loaded. The lumber at one end of the car projected some 20 inches or more, so that it occupied the space which is ordinarily allowed between the cars when connected, to enable the brakemen to make the coupling with safety. There was much testimony as to causes which led to the injury, bearing upon the question of negligence on part of the plaintiffs. This testimony, in view of the disposition we shall make of the case, we deem it neither necessary nor proper to consider. The lumber was loaded by the servants of one Tolliver, the owner of a lumberyard, on a side track near the station. There is nothing to show that Tolliver bore any other relation to the company, except that of a shipper. He was examined as a witness for the plaintiff, and it is to be presumed that if any other relation existed it would have been proved. It does appear that the car was placed by the company's servants upon the side track for the purpose of being loaded, and that after it was loaded one Littlefield, the station agent of defendant, gave Tolliver a bill of lading for the lumber. It is also to be inferred from the testimony that the agent directed the car as loaded by Tolliver to be incorporated into the train. There was also evidence conducing to prove that the station agent had control over the company's station, with power to employ and to discharge hands on duty at the station. He had, however, no power to employ or discharge the servants who were operating the trains upon the road. Such being a brief statement of the evidence tending to show negligence on part of the company's agents and servants, the court, at the request of the plaintiff, gave the following charge: "If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff herein, at the time of the accident complained of, was in the employ of the company as brakeman on one of its freight trains; that while so employed, and in the line of his duty, he received the injuries stated in the petition, resulting from being struck by a piece of lumber which extended over the platform of a flat car, loaded with lumber, which he was attempting to couple; and you further believe that there were other persons in the employ of the defendant, whose duty it was to examine cars which were loaded, and to see that they were properly loaded, before the company allowed them to be received; and that such other person had general authority and control over defendant's freight business at the time and place where the accident occurred, with authority to employ and discharge hands in connection with said business, — then the court instructs the jury, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff and such other persons were not fellow-servants, engaged in the same grade or line of service, within the meaning of the law which holds that the master is not liable for injuries to one servant on account of the negligence of a fellow-servant."
The giving of this charge is assigned as error. In the case of Railway Co. v. Welch, 10 S. W. Rep. 529, (decided at the last Tyler...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fort Worth Elevators Co. v. Russell
...has been negligent in the selection of the incompetent or unfit servant, as was found by the jury in this case. G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Farmer, 73 Tex. 85, 11 S. W. 156, and other authorities supra. However, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff in error was entitled to have its common......
-
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Waldo
...and physical condition of the place itself, and not to the intentional or negligent acts of fellow employees. G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Farmer, 73 Tex. 89, 11 S. W. 156, 157; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Page, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 489, 68 S. W. 528; Coca-Cola Co. v. Williams, 209 S. W. 396, 397 (Tex.......
-
Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Wilson
...to him, we think there can be no question. Railway Co. v. Whitmore, 58 Tex. 276; Railway Co. v. Dunham, 49 Tex. 181; Railway Co. v. Farmer, 73 Tex. 85, 11 S. W. 156. We are therefore of opinion that this evidence at least shows that the company had notice of the defect prior to the accident......
-
Thurber Brick Co. v. Matthews
...A. Ry. v. Smith, 76 Tex. 611, 13 S. W. 562, 18 Am. St. Rep. 78; T. & P. Ry. v. Reeves, 90 Tex. 499, 39 S. W. 564; G., H. & S. A. Ry. v. Geo. L. Farmer, 73 Tex. 85, 11 S. W. 156; Judson & Little v. Tucker, 156 S. W. 228, supra, and authorities there cited; Dantzler v. De Bardeleben Coal & Ir......