Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Gant
Decision Date | 31 March 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 5461.) |
Parties | HOUSTON & T. C. R. CO. v. GANT et ux. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Tom L. McCullough, Judge.
Action by William M. Gant and wife against the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company, Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, and Stribling & Stribling, of Waco, for appellant. James P. Alexander, of Waco, for appellees.
Wm. M. Gant and his wife recovered a judgment against the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company, for damages on account of the death of their infant daughter; and the railroad company has appealed.
We sustain the second assignment of error, which complains of the court's charge upon the measure of damages, which charge reads as follows:
The bill of exception shows that appellant presented timely written objections to the court's charge, one of which complained of that portion of it quoted above as being upon the weight of evidence, and because it "does not exclude from the consideration of the jury those elements of damages which the jury should not consider, such as grief, loss of society of said child, mental pain and anguish, and such other elements as the jury might improperly consider in a case of this sort, other than of a pecuniary nature." We have a statute which prescribes that, in charging a jury, the judge shall not comment upon the weight of testimony; and, in construing that statute, our Supreme Court has held that it is reversible error for a presiding judge, either directly or indirectly, either by express statement or by implication, to convey to the jury his opinion as to the weight of material testimony, except in cases where the evidence is so clear and undisputed as to justify a peremptory instruction to find a verdict for one of the litigants. It is contended by appellant that the charge in question falls under the condemnation of the decisions referred to, because of the fact that it assumed that, if the child had not died on the occasion in question, it would have lived to the age of 21 years. If the charge is subject to that criticism, still, as the objection that was presented to the court was general and did not specify the particular portion of the charge alleged to be upon the weight of testimony, we would not hold that the case should be reversed for that reason; but the other objection was specific, and, in our opinion, it should have been sustained and the charge corrected in that respect, In Railway Co. v. McVey, 99 Tex. 28, 87 S. W. 328, in construing a charge similar in principle, our Supreme Court held that, on account of certain omissions, it was misleading and contained affirmative error; and we copy from that opinion as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Conley
...to have excluded the necessity of doing anything else. Other cogent reasons are given in the cases cited. Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co. v. Cant (Tex. Civ. App.) 175 S. W. 745; Hines v. Kelley (Tex. Com. App.) 252 S. W. We are of the opinion that the charge complained of was erroneous, in ......
-
St. Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v. Houze
...held by the Supreme Court to be affirmative and positive error in the cases cited in the original opinion and in Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Gant (Tex. Civ. App.) 175 S. W. 745; and Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Worthy, 87 Tex. 459, 29 S. W. 376. It is true that the appellant did not obje......
-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Hines
...to have excluded the necessity of doing anything else. Other cogent reasons are given in the cases cited. Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co. v. Gant [Tex. Civ. App.] 175 S. W. 745; Hines v. Kelley [Tex. Com. App.] 252 S. W. In the instant case the only objections which the Texas & Pacific Rail......
-
Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Dillon
...damages for injuries resulting in death. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Worthy, 87 Tex. 459, 29 S.W. 376; Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Gant, Tex.Civ. App., 175 S.W. 745; Hines, Director General v. Kelley, Tex.Com.App., 252 S. W. 1033; Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Conley, 113 Tex. 472, 260 S.W......