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

• Decision Date: 02 May 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 867
• Parties: GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. <I>v.</I> BLOHN <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

11 S.W. 867

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

v. BLOHN et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 2, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Bell county.

Harris & Saunders, for appellant. E. S. Lott and W. S. Holman, for appellees.

HENRY, J.

This suit was brought by appellees, who are father and son, to recover damages for both, caused by an injury to the son. Willie Blohn, the son, being at the time of his injury between 20 and 21 years old, was then employed as a fireman on one of the defendant's engines, and had been so engaged for the preceding two years. On the day that the injury to plaintiff occurred a train was made up consisting of 18 cars. An engine with a full head of steam was attached to the front of this train. Another engine was attached to the rear end of the train, to help start it on an up grade, after which was done it was the purpose to detach the rear engine. One Shanklin was the engineer in charge of the rear engine. While the train was so standing plaintiff Willie Blohn went under the rear engine to clean out its ash-pan, and while he was so engaged the front engine started the train, causing the fireman to be caught under the wheels of the rear engine, resulting in so crushing his leg that it had to be amputated below his knee. Plaintiffs charged in their pleadings, and the son testified as a witness, that Shanklin, the engineer, ordered the fireman to go under the engine and clean out the ash-pan, and that the train was started without the proper signals being given. Defendant denies, and is supported by the engineer's testimony, that the fireman was ordered to go under the engine, and avers that he acted voluntarily. Four witnesses, including a brother, and a physician who amputated his leg, testified to Willie Blohn's admission, made at different times after his accident, that he went under the engine voluntarily, and not by command of the engineer. Both plaintiffs testified denying his making such admissions. His mother and sister and another witness gave evidence discrediting his making such statements. The incompetency and unfitness of the engineer was charged, but no evidence in support of the allegation was offered. On the contrary, there was evidence of his competency. It was shown that Willie Blohn was receiving for his services, when injured, $55 per month, which he gave to his father. The evidence was that he was injured on the 10th of November, 1886, and was 21 years old in the following September. No pecuniary damage to his father was proved, except the loss of his son's wages. He was employed by defendant with his father's consent, and he testified himself that he knew all about the duties of a fireman, and about the risk of going under an engine, before he was...