Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. O'Neal
| Decision Date | 09 May 1898 |
| Citation | 47 S.W. 95 |
| Parties | HOUSTON & T. C. R. CO. v. O'NEAL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Ross O'Neal against the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, which was affirmed by the court of civil appeals (45 S. W. 921), from which defendant brings error. Reversed.
Frost, Neblett & Blanding, for plaintiff in error. Croft & Croft, for defendant in error.
O'Neal sued the railroad company to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been negligently inflicted upon him by it in a collision between him and one of its engines at a crossing of the railroad and a public road. The petition charged that the injury was occasioned by the negligence of the company in failing "to ring the bell upon said engine and blow the whistle while coming to said crossing, as required by law to do." From the evidence the jury might have found either that the whistle was not blown, or that it was only blown after it passed a point 80 rods from the crossing, or that it was only blown before it passed such point. The company, by its evidence, sought to establish the last proposition. The court charged the jury that "the law requires that persons running railroad engines shall, when within 80 rods of a public highway crossing of the railroad, blow the whistle and begin to ring the bell on the engine, and continue to ring the bell until the crossing has been passed; and, if the persons in charge of the engine in this case failed to so blow the whistle and ring the bell of said engine, they were guilty of negligence." The court of civil appeals having affirmed the judgment against the company, it has brought the case to this court, complaining that the court of civil appeals erred in holding that said charge was not erroneous.
Rev. St. 1895, art. 4507, provides that "the whistle shall be blown and the bell rung at the distance of at least eighty rods from the place where the railroad shall cross any public road or street, and such bell shall be kept ringing until it shall have crossed such public road or stopped." In order to comply with this statute, the whistle must be blown for the crossing before passing the point 80 rods distant therefrom. The language, "at the distance of at least eighty rods," is not susceptible of any other construction. The blowing of the whistle after passing such point is not demanded by the letter of the statute, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Tirres
...a public road"; and the appellate court properly held that it was erroneous, because the law has no such requirement. In the O'Neal Case, 91 Tex. 671, 47 S. W. 95, the trial court charged the jury that the law requires the whistle to be blown and bell rung "within 80 rods of a public highwa......
-
Louisiana, A. & T. Ry. Co. v. De Vance
...exceptions to these allegations should be sustained on another trial. 35 Texas Jurisprudence, p. 230, § 155; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. O'Neal, 91 Tex. 671, 672, 47 S.W. 95; Davis v. Pettitt, Tex.Com.App., 258 S.W. 1046, holding approved by Sup.Ct.; Edwards v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co., 105 Te......
-
Mo., O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Adams
...Berry, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 259, 72 S.W. 423; Central Tex., etc., Ry. Co., v. Nycum (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S.W. 460; Houston & Tex. Central Ry. Co. v. O'Neal, 91 Tex. 671, 47 S.W. 95; Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Greer, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 606, 75 S.W. 552. ¶12 The statute quoted by the court in th......
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Brown
...the whistling post until the train had passed over the crossing under Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, Art. 6371. Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. O'Neal, 91 Tex. 671, 47 S.W. 95. Conditions of a crossing may be such as to require the giving of additional warning than is required by statute but ......