Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Johansen
| Decision Date | 03 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2414.) |
| Citation | 179 S.W. 853 |
| Parties | HOUSTON BELT & TERMINAL RY. CO. v. JOHANSEN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Frederick Johansen against the Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals upon remittitur (143 S. W. 1186), and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Andrews, Ball & Streetman and A. L. Jackson, all of Houston, for plaintiff in error. John Lovejoy and Presley K. Ewing, both of Houston, for defendant in error.
The suit was by Johansen, the defendant in error, on account of personal injuries suffered by him while in the discharge of his duty as a member of the fire department of the city of Houston by the explosion of combustible materials contained in a box car in the custody and charge of the plaintiff in error. The evidence warranted the conclusion that the explosion was caused by a sudden collision of the car with other cars, due to its being "kicked in" on the track where they were standing. The original explosion was followed by recurrent explosions of the contents, causing a fire in the car, as the result of which the contents were consumed, and the car wrecked. The burning car threatened adjacent property, and, in response to an alarm, Johansen, with other members of the fire department, went to the scene for the purpose of extinguishing the fire. While engaged in that duty, and in proximity to the car, a further explosion of its contents occurred, of a violent character, causing his injury. The jury resolved against the plaintiff in error the issue of whether the explosion was caused by its negligent handling of the car, returning a verdict in Johansen's favor in the sum of $12,500; the verdict itemizing $2,500 of that amount as allowed for lost time, an issue of damages submitted in the charge. The honorable Court of Civil Appeals ordered a remittitur of $840 of the damages given for lost time, the judgment to be affirmed upon the remittitur being filed; and it was so filed. The writ of error was allowed on the petition of the railway company, on the ground there urged, that the undisputed evidence showed that during the whole of the time for which damages were allowed on account of lost time, that is, from the date of the injury down to the time of the trial, Johansen had received the same, and during a part of the time a greater, salary than he was receiving at the time of the injury. The charge of the court instructed the jury upon this feature of the damages that the plaintiff would only be allowed the reasonable value of time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Cities Gas Co. v. Dickens
...the rule of law announced in the cases of Houston Belt & Terminal Co. v. O'Leary, Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W. 601; Houston Belt & Terminal Co. v. Johansen, 107 Tex. 336, 179 S.W. 853; and McAfee v. Travis Gas Corporation, Tex.Sup., 153 S.W.2d Appellant maintains that its failure to cut off the g......
-
Thomas v. Cnc Investments, L.L.P.
...had found an additional duty—not to injure the public-safety officer through active negligence. Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Johansen, 107 Tex. 336, 179 S.W. 853, 853-54 (Tex. 1915); Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. O'Leary, 136 S.W. 601, 605 (Tex.Civ.App. 1911, writ ref'd); see Tex......
-
Harris v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...of negligence in allowing a fireman to recover in a case arising out of the same accident as O'Leary. Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Johansen, 107 Tex. 336, 179 S.W. 853 (1915). Despite scholarly criticism, 6 the continuing negligence theory remains viable in Texas. McAfee v. Travis Gas......
-
Texas Cities Gas Co. v. Dickens
...to the hazard and dangers of the fire. They owed the duty to use at least ordinary care to cut off the gas. Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Johansen, 107 Tex. 336, 179 S. W. 853; Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. O'Leary, Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W. 601, writ refused; McAfee v. Travis Gas Co......
-
CHAPTER 10.I. Motion Authorities
...by employer's insurance carrier). Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Johansen, 143 S.W. 1186, 1186 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1912), aff'd, 179 S.W. 853 (Tex. 1915) (plaintiff could recover lost wages despite employer's having gratuitously paid wages during period of injury). b. Medical or Lia......