Gehring v. Galveston Electric Co.
Decision Date | 17 January 1911 |
Citation | 134 S.W. 288 |
Parties | GEHRING et al. v. GALVESTON ELECTRIC CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; Robt. G. Street, Judge.
Action by Augusta Gehring and others against the Galveston Electric Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Hogg, Gill & Jones and James B. & Charles J. Stubbs, for appellants. Terry, Cavin & Mills, for appellee.
The appellants Augusta Gehring and her daughter, Elsie Gehring, brought this suit against the Galveston Electric Company, a corporation, operating a street railway in the city of Galveston, to recover damages for the death of C. C. Gehring, the husband of Augusta, and the father of Elsie; it being alleged that his death was due to the negligence of the operatives of a street car of appellee, as a result of which the car collided with C. C. Gehring and killed him. The grounds of negligence averred, first, a failure to keep a reasonable lookout and sound warnings on the approach of the car; and, second, that the motorman discovered deceased and his peril in ample time to have stopped the car, or so reduced its speed, by the use of the means at hand, as to have prevented the injury. The defenses urged were, in substance, a general denial and contributory negligence. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant, and from an order overruling a motion for new trial the plaintiffs have appealed.
It appears to be conceded that the accident happened on Market street, which runs east and west, at a point between the intersections of this street and Thirty-Second and Thirty-Third streets, which run north and south, and that there were two street car tracks, in Market street, the north one being used exclusively by west-bound cars and the south one by east-bound cars, and that the car that collided with deceased was a west-bound car.
The evidence in the record tending to raise the issue of discovered peril is substantially as follows:
F. Hamilton testified:
William Gauslin testified:
The witness, A. Bellar, testified: He further testified:
The witness Altenberger testified that the deceased when he first saw him was walking in the path between the two car tracks, going west and the car coming up behind him, and was within 10 feet of him; that the deceased must have turned half around, when the car struck him on the right shoulder and knocked him down; that after he fell the car ran about two car lengths, he judged, from where it struck him; that he did not think the motorman put his hand on the brake until the conductor signaled him to stop.
It appears that the motorman sounded the gong for some distance before the collision —the motorman says he sounded it continuously —but...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ford v. Panhandle & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
...101 Tex. 511, 109 S.W. 918; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Tinon, Tex.Civ.App., 117 S.W. 936, 938, writ refused; Gehring v. Galveston Electric Co., Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W. 288, no writ history; Galveston Electric Co. v. Antonini, Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W. 841, 845, writ refused; Higginbotham v......
-
Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Dumas
...in this case. Railway Co. v. Finn, 101 Tex. 511, 109 S. W. 918; Railway Co. v. Summers, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 133, 111 S. W. 214; Gehring v. Railway Co., 134 S. W. 288. It is further objected to said charge that it is upon the weight of the evidence, in that the same was substantially given in ......
- Rabinowitz v. North Texas Realty Co.
- Blomstrom v. Wells