Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Keith
| Decision Date | 11 June 1889 |
| Citation | 11 S.W. 1117 |
| Parties | GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. <I>v.</I> KEITH. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
W. M. Flournoy, for appellant.
Suit for damages for the value of two horses at $125 each, $60 feed for the horses while caring for them, $80 for care and attention to them, $40 expended in repairs on wagon. The petition alleged that plaintiff was driving along the road from Meridian, in Bosque county, to McLennan county, in a wagon drawn by his two horses; that, without his fault, the horses became frightened, and attempted to run away, a bridle bit broke, they became unmanageable, ran the wagon on a bank, threw him out on the ground, and injuring him so that he became insensible, and could no longer manage his horses; that they ran in the direction of defendant's railroad, reached the crossing, and stopped with the wagon; that defendant's locomotive and train was, by defendant's servants, negligently and recklessly run against the horses and wagon, destroying the wagon, and so injuring the horses as to render them unfit for use, and valueless; that defendant's servants could have avoided the injury by the use of ordinary care; that he was compelled to expend $40 to repair his wagon, $60 feed for the horses while trying to save them from permanent injury, and that his attention to them for the four months, so attempting to save them, was worth $80. He failed to preserve their usefulness, and they were a total loss. Defendant excepted to that part of the petition asking compensation for the feed of the horses, because it was not alleged to be extra feed, or that the feed would not have been necessary if the horses had not been injured, and to that part of the petition asking compensation for attention to the horses. Defendant answered by general denial, and plea of contributory negligence; that plaintiff was so intoxicated that he lost control of himself and team, permitting them to become separated from him; that they proceeded, unattended, along the dirt road to the railroad crossing, where they stopped, and were struck by the train, without fault or negligence of defendant's servants. The court overruled defendant's exceptions. Trial resulted in verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $240. Other facts and proceedings necessary to an understanding of the case are stated in the opinion. The general rule undoubtedly is that, where there is a total loss of personal property resulting from the negligence of the defendant, the measure of damages is the value of the property at the time of the injury, and interest. This rule is not inflexible. Where an animal is so injured that its usefulness is not only impaired, but destroyed, the measure of damages is its value, reasonable compensation for attention, and expenses in prudent efforts to effect a cure. It is said in Shearman & Redfield on Negligence: "The law would be inhuman if it should prescribe a different rule, even where the animal eventually dies, since it would then offer an inducement to the owner to neglect its sufferings." Shear. & R. Neg. § 603, and note 2. If the plaintiff in good faith attempted to cure his horses after they were injured, and for that purpose fed and attended to them, and they became from their injuries useless, he should have, as damages, reasonable compensation for his attention to them, and expenses incurred, besides their value; provided, of course, he is entitled to recover at all. There was no error in overruling defendant's exceptions to plaintiff's claim for such damages.
The court instructed the jury as follows: "If a railway company does injury to property, the company will be responsible for the damage caused by such injury: provided the person whose property was injured did not by his own negligence contribute to the injury." This charge is assigned as error, because it does not make the liability of the company depend upon its negligence. The injury occurred in 1881. The horses and wagon were on the railroad crossing, a neighborhood crossing about 300...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Young, 4386.
...this expense from plaintiff, even though he aggravated his loss from plaintiff's breach instead of reducing it. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Keith, 74 Tex. 287, 11 S.W. 1117; Nading v. Denison & P. Suburban R. Co., 22 Tex.Civ. App. 173, 54 S.W. 412; Waco Artesian Water Co. v. Cauble, 19 Tex.C......
- Henshaw v. State
- Bowman v. State
-
Chicago. R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Word
...loss; and, if in doing so he incurred reasonable and necessary expense, he was entitled to recover for such expense. Railway Co. v. Keith, 74 Tex. 287, 11 S. W. 1117; Railway Co. v. Tuckett, 25 S. W. 670; Railway Co. v. Philips, 63 Tex. 593; Buffalo B. S. C. Co. v. Milby, 63 Tex. 492, 51 Am......