Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Barnett

• Decision Date: 30 November 1898
• Citation: 47 S.W. 1039
• Parties: GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. BARNETT.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

47 S.W. 1039

GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. BARNETT.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

November 30, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Runnels county; J. O. Woodward, Judge.

Action by J. T. Barnett against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

J. W. Terry and Charles K. Lee, for appellant. Guion & Truly, for appellee.

KEY, J.

On the night of January 14, 1898, appellee was at Talpa, a station on the line of appellant's railroad, for the purpose of boarding the train and traveling to Ballinger, Tex. He had procured his ticket, and, when the train arrived, he walked down the platform near the rear end of the train, stepped or fell from the end of the platform, got his hand caught under the train and injured. For this injury he sought to recover damages in this suit, alleging in his petition that appellant was guilty of negligence in failing to have proper approaches to its depot, and in failing to properly light the depot and platform. At the trial in the court below verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff, and the railway company has appealed.

The first paragraph of the court's charge reads as follows: "It is the duty of every railroad company doing business in this state to keep in a reasonably safe condition all portions of their platforms and approaches thereto where passengers landing from or entering the cars would naturally or ordinarily be likely to go. It is also the duty of every railroad company doing business in this state to keep its depots or passenger houses in this state lighted and open to the ingress and egress of all passengers who are entitled to go thereon, and every railroad company, for such failure to comply with the same, will be liable to the party injured for all damages by reason of such failure."

The first proposition stated in this charge is objected to on the ground that the testimony raises no such issue; and the other proposition is objected to because it, in effect, told the jury that the failure to do certain things would constitute negligence.

The platform at the depot in question is 152 feet long and 6 feet 9 inches wide. At the end where appellee fell, it is 1 foot 4 inches from the ground at the corner nearest the railroad track, and 2 feet 1 inch from the ground at the other corner. The plaintiff's case is based upon the theory, and his testimony is to the effect, that it was so dark that he could not see where the platform terminated, and that, supposing the platform to extend further, he stepped beyond its edge, and thereby fell. It is true the testimony shows that there were no steps at the place where he fell, but, if there had been, it is not probable that they would have prevented appellee from falling. He was not attempting or...