International & G. N. R. Co. v. Harris
| Decision Date | 24 March 1902 |
| Citation | 67 S.W. 315 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. v. HARRIS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Josh Harris against the International & Great Northern Railroad Company. From a judgment of the court of civil appeals (65 S. W. 885) affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Denman, Franklin & McGown, for plaintiff in error. J. D. Childs, for defendant in error.
Josh Harris sued the International & Great Northern Railroad Company to recover damages alleged to have been received while plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant and engaged in operating coal chutes for the purpose of supplying the defendant's trains with coal. It was alleged that the coal chute which caused the injury was defective in the particulars alleged, of which fact the plaintiff was ignorant; but the defendant knew of the defect, or by the use of ordinary care would have discovered it. The allegations were full upon all points necessary to present the case, but it is unnecessary for us to state them more specifically. The defendant pleaded a general denial, and that the injury was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff and his fellow servant. The court of civil appeals (65 S. W. 885) found the facts to support the plaintiff's allegations, and that the plaintiff did not know of the defect, but that the railroad company did know of it. A more particular statement of the facts is not necessary to the decision of the point involved by this writ of error. There was evidence tending to prove that the plaintiff knew of the defect in the coal chute at the time he used it and received his injuries. The trial court charged the jury as follows: "If you further believe from the evidence that on or about October 12, 1900, the plaintiff, while in the employ of the defendant, was injured as alleged in his petition, while operating or attempting to operate one of the defendant's coal chutes; and if you further believe from the evidence that said coal chute did not have a guard board or guard gate; and if you further believe from the evidence that the defendant was guilty of negligence in having said coal chute in the condition you find it was in, and that such negligence, if any, was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, if any,—then you will find for the plaintiff, unless you find under the instructions hereinafter given you that the plaintiff himself was guilty of negligence that contributed to his injuries." The charge is assigned as error in the application for the writ, which was granted upon that ground. The defect complained of in the charge is that it failed to submit to the jury the issue of plaintiff's knowledge of the defect in the chute, and that he assumed the risk by using it in its defective condition. Was the issue of assumed risk made by the pleadings? If...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dana v. Gulf & Ship Island R. Co.
...447, 36 N.E. 65, 39 Am. St. Rep. 504. See note also; (Civ. App. 1901) I. & G. N. R. Co. v. Harris, 65 S.W. 885, judgment affirmed (Sup. 1902), 67 S.W. 315, 95 Texas, 346; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Brown, 69 651; Jones v. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 73 S.W. 1082, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 198; Galvesto......
-
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Weatherford
...in a negligence case that he was in the exercise of due care, or that he had not assumed the risk of injury. International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Harris, 95 Tex. 346, 67 S.W. 315; allegations of the place of residence of parties; that a document, the basis of a suit, is in the possession of the......
-
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Wright, 1528.
...a case, for the court to submit to the jury a defense which was not pleaded by the defendant." (Italics ours.) International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Harris, 95 Tex. 346, 67 S.W. 315, was cited. In that case the query was propounded: "Was the issue of assumed risk made by the pleadings?" Plaintif......
-
Wright v. McCoy
...the authorities cited in support of the proposition in the opinion, or assumed risk as held, for instance, in International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Harris, 95 Tex. 346, 67 S.W. 315, and yet, it not be necessary specially to plead unavoidable accident, new and independent cause, that an alleged s......