Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bell
Citation | 58 S.W. 614 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Decision Date | 10 October 1900 |
Parties | GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. BELL. |
Appeal from district court, Coleman county; J. O. Woodward, Judge.
Action by W. D. Bell against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company for injuries received while a passenger on defendant's train. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Sims & Snodgrass, J. W. Terry, and Chas. K. Lee, for appellant. Cockrell & Hardwicke, J. K. Baker, and Theodore Mack, for appellee.
This suit was brought by W. D. Bell against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company to recover damages for injuries received while a passenger on appellant's passenger train going into Coleman from Brownwood on the night of the 15th day of May, 1895. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant has appealed. We have considered and overruled the motion of appellee to strike out the statement of facts.
Findings of Fact.
We find the facts as follows: Plaintiff was a passenger on defendant's passenger train from Brownwood to Coleman. There had been a severe storm of wind and rain at Coleman, that had driven a train of stock cars standing on a switch at Coleman back on the main track, so that the end of the rear car of the stock train projected over on the main track, making an obstruction to passing trains. The brakes had been turned on the freight train to keep it in position on the switch, but, the track inclining with the direction of the wind, the cars were moved as stated. An employé of the company had discovered the position of the stock cars, and, by direction of the company's agent, immediately after the discovery went out with a lantern to flag the passenger train, then in view, coming in from Brownwood after the storm; plaintiff, being a passenger thereon, riding in the chair car. The employé sent out to flag the passenger train proceeded about 450 yards from the depot, passing the obstructing cars, and was opposite his home when his lantern went out, so that he could not give the signal of danger. He hurried back to the depot and fixed his lantern, and started back to flag the train; and when he arrived at the switch his lantern went out again, and he had not time to relight it. The wind was then blowing very little. He did not know what caused his lantern to go out. He "commenced hollering," and ran down to meet the passenger train, saw he could not stop the train, and got off the track. The passenger train ran into the stock car. Plaintiff was asleep, and just before the collision the conductor woke him up, saying, "We are at Coleman." Plaintiff raised up, and was standing in the aisle at the time of the collision, and was thrown against the smoking compartment in the front end of the chair car. When he got up he was standing in the aisle, some eight or ten feet from the smoking compartment, at the time of the collision.
We incorporate the following statements of witnesses as facts proved on the trial, and find that the facts stated are true; and we also find that the physical conditions of plaintiff, stated, were caused by the collision of the cars, which collision was the result of negligence on the part of defendant company:
Speaking of the collision, plaintiff testified:
J. N. Furgeson testified as follows, and we find his statements are true: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baush Mach. Tool Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 480.
...622, 119 S. W. 725; Denison v. Lewis, 5 App. D. C. 328; Alabama Power Co. v. Berry, 222 Ala. 20, 130 So. 541; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Bell, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 579, 58 S. W. 614; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Dunbar, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 12, 108 S. W. 500. In the last-cited case, the court distinguishe......
-
Schaff v. Daugherty
...page 1172 et seq., and pages 1174, 1175; also C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. McKone, 36 Okla. 41, 127 P. 488; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Bell, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 579, 58 S.W. 614; Smith v. Western R. Co., 91 Ala. 455, 8 So. 754, 324 Am. St. Rep. 929, 11 L.R.A. 619; Cannon v. Hunt, 113 Ga. 501, 38......
-
Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Baker
...his cause of action. Ry. Co. v. Zwiener (Tex. Civ. App.) 38 S. W. 375; Ry. v. Norvell (Tex. Civ. App.) 115 S. W. 861; Railway v. Bell, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 579, 58 S. W. 614; Railway v. Coffman (Tex. Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 145; Texas Traction Co. v. Morrow (Tex. Civ. App.) 145 S. W. 1069; Lumber......
-
Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company v. Teeters
... ... (1902), 180 Mass. 477, 63 N.E. 5; Baxter v ... Chicago, etc., R. Co. (1893), 87 Iowa 488, 54 N.W ... 350; 7 Ency. Evidence, 421, 424; Gulf, etc., R. Co ... v. Bell (1900), 24 Tex. Civ. App. 579, 58 S.W. 614; ... International, etc., R. [166 Ind. 354] Co ... v. Locke (1902), ... ...