Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Patton

• Decision Date: 30 June 1888
• Citation: 9 S.W. 175
• Parties: HOUSTON & T. C. RY. CO. <I>v.</I> PATTON.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

9 S.W. 175

HOUSTON & T. C. RY. CO.

v.PATTON.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 30, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Grayson county.

Action by James Patton against Houston & Texas Central Railway Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

R.De Armond and C. N. Buckler, for appellant.W. W. Wilkins, for appellee.

GAINES, J.

This action was brought by appellee against appellant to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of one of appellant's engineers in operating its train.The appellee was a brakeman on the train at the time the accident occurred, and sought to recover by showing that the engineer in charge of the engine was careless and reckless in operating his trains, and that the defendant company was chargeable with notice of the fact.

Upon the trial, the plaintiff offered to read the answer of a witness to a cross-interrogatory propounded by defendant, to which defendant objected on the ground that the answer was not responsive to the questions propounded.The interrogatory and answer are as follows: "State whether or not the injury to Patton arose from ignorance or want of knowledge on the part of Hawley as an engineer, or from some other cause.Answer.We had 21 or 22 cars, and were coupling the cars to caboose on the main track, if I remember correctly.The engineer, Hawley, was backing down grade to make the coupling, working steam all the time, when the accident happened.I and the conductor tried to control the speed by brakes, but could not, with the steam against us.We signaled him (the engineer) to shut off steam, but he did not do so.The force of the engine and train knocked the caboose back two or three car-lengths, with the brakes set very tight."We think the answer of the witness responsive.The question seeks to draw out from him the causes of the accident.Instead of giving his opinion whether it was caused by the negligence of the engineer or not, he states the facts.This was the proper manner of answering the interrogation.The same witness was also asked whether, at the time the accident occurred, the engineer Hawley was a competent, careful, and safe engineer, or whether he was incompetent, reckless, and unsafe.This was objected to on the ground that the witness had not qualified himself to testify in regard to Hawley's competency and carefulness.The testimony in the case shows that the engineer was competent, so far as the mere question of skill was concerned.His competency in this regard was not controverted.What plaintiff attempted to prove was that he was careless in running the trains, and especially in coupling the cars.The witness was an old brakeman, and had worked as such upon the train operated by Hawley for some two weeks before the trial.We think his experience as brakeman qualified him to testify as to the competency of an engineer upon whose trains he had run for a series of days, at least as to all matters which did not involve a technical knowledge of the machinery of the engine.The entire testimony of the witness shows that he did not doubt that Hawley was sufficiently skillful, but that he did think him careless in running his trains.There was no error in admitting the evidence.

One Kyle, a locomotive engineer and machinist, testified that he was employed in the latter capacity in defendant's shops from February, 1883, to October of that year; that during this time he knew Hawley, who was running an engine on defendant's road, and that he did not think him a careful engineer, because he had habitually brought his engines into the shop out of repair; and that the defects were such as would not have occurred if the engineer had exercised...