Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Scott
| Decision Date | 18 April 1901 |
| Citation | 62 S.W. 1077 |
| Parties | HOUSTON & T. C. R. CO. v. SCOTT. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Brazos county; W. G. Taliaferro, Judge.
Action by Clarence Scott against the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company for injuries received while in the employ of defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Baker, Botts, Baker & Lovett and Frank Andrews, for appellant. Ford & Ford, for appellee.
Clarence Scott, a minor, brought this suit by Robert M. Henry, as next friend, to recover damages of the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company for personal injuries received by him while he was in the employ of the defendant as a section hand. The cause was submitted to a jury, and upon their verdict a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. A reversal of the judgment is sought only upon the ground of the insufficiency of the facts to sustain it. At the time he was injured, Scott was engaged at work on a gravel-decked bridge, nipping ties to which rails were being spiked. The work of nipping ties was done by putting a claw bar under the end of a tie, and raising it up to the rail, against which it was held while two other men spiked the rail to it. There was a space of about 2 feet between the end of the ties and the edge of the bridge. From the top of the bridge to the bed of the creek below was about 30 feet. Plaintiff was standing at the end of the tie near the edge of the bridge, and was pressing down upon the claw bar holding the tie up against a rail, which two men were spiking to the tie, when the claw bar slipped loose from its hold under the end of the tie, and plaintiff fell over the edge of the bridge to the bed of the creek below. At the time of the accident plaintiff was 19½ years old. Both his father and mother were dead, and he had been at work for himself 4 or 5 years. He had done work on the railroad as a section hand for 3 months, and was familiar with the work of nipping ties, though he had not nipped ties before that day upon a gravel-decked bridge. From the evidence he appeared to be intelligent, and to understand the nature of the work he was doing. There was evidence that in nipping ties on a bridge there should be two men with claw bars, so that the tie could be raised from the sides, instead of the end, and the men could stand in a safer place. But the defendant company had only one man to do the work. The plaintiff did not know at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Company v. Ashley
...L. 652. Following implements have been held to be "simple tools:" "Prize pole," 17 S.W. 580; "crowbar," 28 So. 643; "claw-bar," 47 Ill.App. 465, 62 S.W. 1077; "gooseneck 82 S.W. 319; "wrench," 98 F. 192; "chisel," 67 A. 28; 57 Ark. 503; "dull long-handled hook, " 46 Hun 497; "lifting jack,"......
-
Wichita Falls & S. R. Co. v. Lindley
...for jury determination. Gulf, W. T. & P. R. Co. v. Smith, 37 Tex.Civ. App. 188, 83 S.W. 719, writ refused; Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Scott, Tex. Civ.App., 62 S.W. 1077; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Hudson, 71 Okl. 157, 175 P. 743, 9 A.L.R. 223, and notes thereunder. We overrule the third p......
-
Kirby Lumber Co. v. Hardy
...S. W. 174; Ry. Co. v. Martin, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 207, 51 S. W. 641; Cotton Oil Co. v. Shaw, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 65, 65 S. W. 693; Ry. Co. v. Scott, 62 S. W. 1077; Ry. Co. v. Austin, 72 S. W. 212; Ry Co. v. Smith, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 188, 83 S. W. 719; Pipe Co. v. Noll, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 269, 83 ......
-
Ladonia Cotton Oil Co. v. Shaw
...Co. v. Lempe, 59 Tex. 19; Rogers v. Railway Co., 76 Tex. 502, 13 S. W. 540; Green v. Cross, 79 Tex. 130, 15 S. W. 220; Railroad Co. v. Scott (Tex. Civ. App.) 62 S. W. 1077; Brown v. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.) 62 S. W. Because the appellee's own testimony shows that the company is not liable to......