International & G. N. R. Co. v. Beasley
| Decision Date | 21 February 1895 |
| Citation | 29 S.W. 1121 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. v. BEASLEY. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Harris county; S. H. Brashear, Judge.
Action by H. J. Beasley against the International & G. N. R. Company, for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as defendant's employé. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Robt. G. Street, for appellant. Henry F. Fisher, for appellee.
Appellee recovered the judgment from which this appeal was taken for damages for personal injury received by him while working for appellant. A piano, setting upon a truck drawn by another servant, turned over upon appellee, as he walked beside it, supporting it, to prevent it from falling. He claimed that appellant was guilty of negligence in failing to furnish another man to aid him by supporting the other side of the truck. The petition alleged that he "sustained great and permanent harm, injury, and hurt; that by reason of said carelessness and recklessness * * * said piano was caused to and did fall in and upon this plaintiff, crushing him to the floor as aforesaid, inflicting upon him serious and permanent injuries, breaking his leg and thigh, and injuring his spine, besides crushing his arms, head, and body;" that he was rendered a cripple for life, etc. At the trial there was evidence that plaintiff's foot, below the ankle, was broken, and that constituted his most serious injury. Appellant asked a charge, which was refused, to the effect that "the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages on account of injuries to his foot that may have been shown by the evidence, and the jury are instructed to disregard evidence of injury to plaintiff's foot." The refusal of this instruction was error. The general statements in the petition as to the permanent injury inflicted upon plaintiff must be construed to refer to injuries to those parts especially mentioned. There is no reference to an injury to the foot, nor to any other than those particularly named. Had there been no particular mention of any of the parts which were hurt, to restrict the general allegation of permanent injury, it may be true that the petition, if unexcepted to, would have admitted proof of any bodily hurt plaintiff may have received. But here the petition was not open to exception, as its allegations were sufficiently specific, and pointed attention to injuries to other parts of the body than the foot. That the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Jenkins
...better practice to allege that such injury naturally followed or arose as a consequence of the injury received. I. & G. N. R. Co. v. Beasley, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 569, 29 S. W. 1121; Tex. State Fair v. Marti, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 132, 69 S. W. 432; Swr. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Tucker (Tex. Civ. App.) 9......
-
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Doell
...no testimony is admissible in a damage suit over objection of defendant of injuries other than those alleged. I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Beasley, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 569, 29 S. W. 1121; Texas State Fair v. Marti, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 132, 69 S. W. 432; S. W. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Tucker (Tex. Civ. App.) ......
-
Houston Electric Co. v. McDade
...v. Preston, 74 Tex. 183, 11 S. W. 1108; Powers v. Caldwell, 25 Tex. 352; Ry. Co. v. Pendeny, 36 S. W. 794. The case of Ry. Co. v. Beasley (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 1121, is cited by appellant as sustaining its contention that the evidence complained of ought not to have been admitted. The a......
-
Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Thompson
...should be alleged.' 16 Enc. of Pl. & Prac. 380; Pinney v. Berry, 61 Mo. 365, 366; Smith v. McConathy, 11 Mo. 524; I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Beasley [Tex. Civ. App.] 29 S. W. 1121." The sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court is vigorously att......