Hines v. Wilson
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | Key |
| Citation | Hines v. Wilson, 225 S.W. 275 (Tex. App. 1920) |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6225.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Parties | HINES, Director General of Railroads, v. WILSON. |
Appeal from District Court, Milam County; John Watson, Judge.
Suit by J. B. Wilson against W. D. Hines, federal Director General of Railroads. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Chambers & Wallace, of Cameron, and Henderson & Ranson, of Bryan, for appellant.
Robt. M. Lyles and R. B. Pool, both of Cameron, for appellee.
This is a damage suit, the injuries complained of having resulted from a collision of an automobile in which the plaintiff, Wilson, was riding and a train on the International & Great Northern Railroad, where the railroad track crosses Main street in the town of Thorndale. The plaintiff charged in his petition that the employés who were operating the train on the occasion in question were guilty of negligence in several different respects, which charge was denied by the defendant's answer, and a plea of contributory negligence was interposed.
The case was submitted to a jury upon special issues, each and all of which were decided in favor of the plaintiff, and upon such verdict a judgment for $15,000 was rendered for the plaintiff; and the defendant, who had charge of and was operating the International & Great Northern Railroad, has appealed.
The several findings of the jury are supported by testimony, and are adopted by this court as findings of fact. The charge given by the court, including a special charge, requested by appellant, presented the case to the jury fairly and correctly, and no error was committed in the charge given, nor in the refusal of charges requested by appellant.
One of the main contentions of appellant's brief is that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and that the court should have so instructed the jury, and directed a verdict in appellant's favor. The proof shows that, on the occasion in question, the plaintiff went to the town of Thorndale on horseback, for the purpose of getting Dr. Lee to come out to his home, two or three miles from Thorndale, to see a sick child of the plaintiff. Dr. Lee lived some distance west of Main street, and near the railroad track. There was a road between his house and the railroad track, which extended east into Thorndale. It was agreed that Dr. Lee was to ride the plaintiff's horse to see the sick child, and as he was starting off Dr. Crockett came by in a Ford car, on his way to Thorndale, and, at the request of Dr. Lee, he allowed the plaintiff to get in his car and ride with him.
In addition to this statement, we copy from appellee's brief the following substantially correct statement:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting