Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Johansen

• Decision Date: 01 February 1912
• Citation: 143 S.W. 1186
• Parties: HOUSTON BELT & TERMINAL RY. CO. v. JOHANSEN.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

143 S.W. 1186

HOUSTON BELT & TERMINAL RY. CO. v. JOHANSEN.^†

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

February 1, 1912.

Rehearing Denied February 21, 1912.

Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Norman G. Kittrell, Judge.

Action by Frederick Johansen against the

Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed on condition.

A. L. Jackson and Andrews, Ball & Streetman, for appellant. John Lovejoy and Presley K. Ewing, for appellee.

HIGGINS, J.

Appellee, Frederick Johansen, brought this action in the district court of Harris county for damages resulting from personal injuries inflicted upon him by an explosion of combustible materials loaded in a certain box car in the custody and charge of the defendant, Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company, in the city of Houston. Upon trial before a jury, a verdict was returned for $12,500; the jury in their verdict stating that $2,500 of amount allowed was for lost time.

This is a companion case to that of Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company v. O'Leary, decided by the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals, and reported in 136 S. W. 601. Appellant in its brief concedes that the instant case is based upon the same state of facts, and substantially the same questions of law are involved as in the O'Leary Case, in which a writ of error was denied by the Supreme Court.

The first, second, third, fourth, and fifth assignments were decided adversely to the contentions of the appellant in the opinion rendered by the Galveston court in the case mentioned, and upon the authority of that case these assignments are overruled without discussion.

The sixth and seventh assignments of error complain of the refusal of the court to give special charges requested by appellant. They were argumentative in their nature, and, in substance, were covered by the general charge of the court, and were properly refused.

The eighth and ninth assignments of error will be considered together. Under the eighth assignment, it is contended that under the evidence the verdict of the jury is so excessive as to show that it was influenced by improper motives or reasons, and the same should therefore be set aside by this court as excessive and unjust. By its ninth assignment of error, appellant complains of a portion of the court's charge, which reads as follows: "In respect to the item for `lost time,' you will allow the plaintiff only the reasonable value of time actually lost to him...