Kirby Lumber Co. v. Henry
Decision Date | 26 May 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 5484.) |
Citation | 178 S.W. 23 |
Parties | KIRBY LUMBER CO. v. HENRY.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hardin County; J. Llewellyn, Judge.
Action by John Henry against the Kirby Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Andrews, Streetman, Burns & Logue, of Houston, for appellant. V. A. Collins, D. E. O'Fiel, and F. G. Vaughn, all of Beaumont, for appellee.
Appellee, John Henry, sued appellant, Kirby Lumber Company, and recovered $5,000 on account of personal injuries sustained by him, as will hereinafter appear.
The substance of the allegations of the petition is well stated by appellant as follows:
"The plaintiff further alleged that after the first car was coupled up, the brakeman stepped out from between the said train and said tender, and the engineer on said train, without giving plaintiff notice of his intention to move said train, backed up with great force and velocity and ran the loaded car which had just been coupled to the tender against another loaded car with great force and velocity, and striking said other car with great force and impact; that on the car coupled to said tender and next to the one where plaintiff was sitting was a log of greater length than the car, and that when the engineer backed said car into said second car with such great force, said projecting log at the end of the car opposite where plaintiff was sitting struck the logs on the second car with such force that it pushed said projecting log on the first car with great force and violence back against the end of the tender where plaintiff was sitting, and without notice or warning to the plaintiff caught his leg between the said tender and the end of the log; and that the position of such projecting log was known to defendant's agents and servants, or by the use of ordinary care could have been known to them, and the dangers of backing such train with such force."
Appellant interposed a general demurrer, as well as denying all the material allegations, and pleaded specially contributory negligence and assumed risk on part of appellee. It was also pleaded that Henry was neither required nor invited to take the position he did take on the tender which he was occupying when injured, but, on the contrary, he had been warned of the danger of so doing; that it was against the rules of the company to do so, of which Henry knew; that he had no duty to perform thereon, and was not expected, required, invited, or permitted to get upon the tender or ride thereon, and that no purpose of the defendant was being subserved by his being thereon at the time and place and under the circumstances of the accident in question; and that defendant owed him no duty in respect to the matters alleged in the petition.
At the conclusion of the evidence appellant asked the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, which was refused, and this is made the basis of the first assignment of error.
Appellee says that he had been working for the company about six months at Silsbee and two weeks at Evadale. He testified:
etc., "and we went on around the curve, and the engine was there wooding up, and Henry McGill was with me then, and I asked him which way the train was going, and he said he didn't know, and by that time the fireman looked around and seen me and said, `Boys, wood up and I will take you on in,' and the brakeman said, `Yes, everybody wood up,' and the engineer looked around and said, `If you want to go in, you will have to wood up.' After we got wooded up he said, `Let's go,' and we went up the main line about a half a mile. * * * The engineer saw me when I got on the train — on the tender of the engine. I had been riding on the same place where I got hurt all the time I had been working there when I was going to and coming from the woods. * * * They would bring us in from the woods on a light shay engine. * * * In going out I always rode on this same place, and they had the same crew. * * * When I took my seat on the tender the engineer and fireman were right there and saw me when I took my seat. * * * Then we started to the mill and went about a mile and one-half, and we had five empty cars behind and they uncoupled them and left the five empties on the main line, and Henry and Ely was on the empty cars. * * * After they cut in on the switch they went down to the loaded cars; don't know how far they were from the switch, I guess about a mile; it was a long ways down there; it was the first time I had been down there, and it seemed like a mile to me, might not have been quite so far, but they were just going a splitting and I had not got through eating when we got there. When we got to the loaded cars the brakeman came around behind and stood on the apron with me. * * * When we got to them he coupled the train up. I was about as close to the first car load of logs as the length of this table (about three feet), and I could see them all right, and the ends of the logs on that car were smooth and shapely and in good order. I could not see the other end of the car because the logs were stacked too high. * * * I could not see any danger from that load of logs, couldn't see any more danger than I see now.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barker v. Coastal Builders
...the decided cases. Let us first notice the results in those cases which have been remanded to the Courts of Civil Appeals. In Kirby Lbr. Co. v. Henry, 178 S.W. 23, the Court of Civil Appeals held that the evidence established contributory negligence as a matter of law and reversed a trial c......
-
Kirby Lumber Co. v. Henry, (No. 5484.)
...and the cause remanded to this court in order that certain assignments of error be passed upon. The opinion of this court is reported in 178 S. W. 23; that of the Commission of Appeals in 215 S. W. 451; and that of the Supreme Court in 218 S. W. 363. The first mentioned two opinions contain......
-
Henry v. Kirby Lumber Co.
...From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which reversed and rendered judgment for defendant (178 S. W. 23), and plaintiff brings error. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and that of the trial court affirmed, on recommendation of the Commi......
-
Henry v. Kirby Lumber Co.
...part of the plaintiff was for the jury. The Court of Civil Appeals determined that question as one of law and adversely to the plaintiff. 178 S. W. 23. In rendering judgment for the defendant thereon, it did not pass upon other assignments of error presented by the defendant. The defendant ......