Horton v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1907 |
| Parties | HORTON v. HOUSTON & T. C. RY. CO. et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; W. P. Hamblen, Judge.
Action by Myrtle May Horton against the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded.
Lovejoy & Parker, for appellant. Lane, Jackson, Kelley & Wolters and C. R. Wharton, for appellees.
This suit was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff as a result of the negligence of the Houston Texas Central Railway Company and the Houston Electric Company. On the verdict of a jury in favor of defendants a judgment was rendered, and the plaintiff has appealed.
The accident giving rise to this litigation occurred in the following manner: The Houston Electric Company operates a system of Electric street cars in the city of Houston, and one of its lines crosses at right angles a system of railway tracks and switches at Bonners Point crossing within the city corporate limits. The engineer and trains of the railway company have the use of the railway tracks at that point. On the occasion in question one of the electric company's cars loaded with passengers, among them the plaintiff, was being propelled over the line which crosses the railway tracks at Bonners Point. A rule of the electric company requires the conductors of its cars to get off at railroad crossings and flag the cars across, the car to be brought to a full stop just before entering upon the crossing, and to proceed upon the signal of the conductor. In this instance the electric car was slowed down at the crossing, the conductor stepped off, and walked across the railway tracks. The car was propelled onto the first track which seems to have been a switch track, and proceeded slowly into the space between that and the second track. The space between these two tracks was broad. A switch engine of the railroad company was approaching from the north, along the second track, at a speed of about eight miles an hour. The employés in charge of it saw the street car, and perceived that it had approached and entered upon the first track. They also saw that the conductor had alighted to flag his car across. The engineer was then within 100 feet of the street car track. The engineer then slowed his engine by the application of the air, but, thinking for some reason that the street car would be stopped to allow him to pass, he again increased the speed of the engine to eight miles an hour. At practically the same instant the motorman and conductor of the street car, thinking, perhaps, that the engineer was not intending to cross, or that he would give the car the right of way, proceeded to take the car across the track. The speed of the engine carried it within 10 to 30 feet of the car. Many of the passengers became very much frightened, thinking a collision inevitable, and several of them, including the plaintiff, leaped from the moving car in what they believed was a necessary effort to save themselves. The plaintiff was injured. The engineer stopped his engine by applying the air brakes in emergency. The motorman, when the passengers began to leap from the car, brought it to a standstill across the track on which the engine was approaching. The engineer had his engine under perfect control, and at that speed there was at no time any actual danger of collision. The motorman doubtless stopped the car when he did to lessen the danger of injury to the passengers who were attempting to leave the car. Neither the motorman nor conductor of the car testified; one being dead and the residence of the other being unknown, he having left the employ of the company. The motives that actuated these two are arrived at by inference from their conduct and the surrounding circumstances. The trial court submitted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories
...ref. n. r. e.; City of Dallas v. Holcomb, Tex.Civ.App. 1964, 381 S.W.2d 347, 350, writ ref. n. r. e. 34 Horton v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 1907, 46 Tex.Civ.App. 639, 103 S.W. 467, 469, writ ref.; Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Robinson, Tex.Civ.App.1949, 222 S.W.2d 266, 269, writ 35 Ray v. G......
-
S. H. Kress & Co. v. Dyer
...598, par. 7, 63 A. L. R. 1009; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Hays, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 162, 89 S. W. 29, 34; Horton v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 46 Tex. Civ. App. 639, 103 S. W. 467, 469; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Mallott (Tex. Civ. App.) 6 S.W.(2d) 432, 438, par. 13; 40 Cyc., p. 2663, pa......
-
San Angelo Water, Light & Power Co. v. Baugh
...within the sound discretion of the trial judge. 22 C. J. 723; Ry. Co. v. Clifford (Tex. Civ. App.) 148 S. W. 1163; Horton v. Ry. Co., 46 Tex. Civ. App. 639, 103 S. W. 467. Appellants' fifth proposition complains of the action of the trial court in permitting appellee's counsel to propound t......
-
Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. v. Bryan
...(Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 707; San Angelo Water, Light & Power Co. v. Baugh (Tex. Civ. App.) 270 S. W. 1104; Horton v. H. & T. C. Ry. Co., 46 Tex. Civ. App. 639, 103 S. W. 467; Sullivan v. Railway Co., 199 Mass. 73, 84 N. E. 844, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) The judgment has been affirmed. Affirmed......