Mack v. Houston E. & W. T. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 04 February 1911 |
Citation | 134 S.W. 846 |
Parties | MACK et ux. v. HOUSTON E. & W. T. RY. CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; L. B. Hightower, Judge.
Action by Henry Mack and wife against the Houston East & West Texas Railway Company. From a judgment sustaining a general demurrer and dismissing the action, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
F. Campbell, for appellants. Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, J. C. Feagin, and J. S. McEachin, for appellee.
Henry Mack and wife bring this suit against the Houston East & West Texas Railway Company to recover damages for the death of their son, Ellis Mack, 15 years of age, alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of defendant. The trial court sustained a general demurrer to plaintiffs' petition, and, plaintiffs declining to amend, dismissed the suit. From the judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal.
The petition alleged that appellee had a depot or station for receiving and discharging freight and passengers and the United States mails at a place called Bering on its line of railway; that, instead of bringing its trains to a stop to take on and put off the mails, appellee constructed at said station and alongside its track a machine called a "mail crane," by means of which the mail pouches were taken on and put off while trains were running at a high rate of speed, and that this machine was so negligently constructed that the steps thereto, which were designed to be suspended by hooks when not in use, would fall from the fastenings when trains moved by; that the defects in said machine were well known to appellee, but wholly unknown to the said Ellis Mack; and that appellee continued to use said crane without warning to any one of its danger. The crane was located on the depot grounds where people were in the habit of congregating on the arrival and departure of trains. The petition further alleged: There were further allegations showing the damages sustained by appellants from the death of their son. Under appropriate assignment of error appellants question the correctness of the ruling of the trial court sustaining the general demurrer.
From the brief of appellee we gather that the ground of demurrer relied upon, and which determined the court's ruling, is that, according to the allegations of the petition, Ellis Mack was a mere licensee, so far as his being upon the premises and at the place where he was injured were concerned, and appellee owed him no duty to keep the premises in a safe condition. We recognize fully the rule in this regard as to licensees; that is, persons who are not trespassers, but are upon the premises of another merely by his permission, expressed or implied, and not by any express or implied invitation. The law on this point is well settled, and if Ellis Mack was a mere licensee, as the case is stated in the petition, there was no error in sustaining the general demurrer. The machine in question was not a trap calculated to catch the unwary, nor was the deceased injured by any negligent act occurring after he came on the premises. But was he a mere licensee? We are familiar...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foster Lumber Co. v. Rodgers
...S.) 979, 132 Am. St. Rep. 843; Blossom Oil & Cotton Co. v. Poteet, 104 Tex. 230, 136 S. W. 432, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 449; Mack v. H. E. & W. T. Ry. Co., 134 S. W. 846; Kirby Lbr. Co. v. Gresham, 151 S. W. 847; Railway Co. v. Brown, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 503, 33 S. W. 146, writ of error denied 93......
-
Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. v. Sloman
...127 S. W. 1068; Trezevant & Cochran v. Powell & Co., 61 Tex. Civ. App. 449, 130 S. W. 234; Ry. Co. v. Gilbert, 130 S. W. 1037; Mack v. Ry. Co., 134 S. W. 846; Walker & Sons v. Fisk, 136 S. W. 101; Shelton v. Cain, 136 S. W. 1155; Gibbens v. Bourland, 145 S. W. 274; Lumber & Creosoting Co. v......
-
Hicks v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...acquiescence." And again: "A licensee is one who goes upon the land of another for his own purposes only." Judge Reese, in Mack v. H. E. & W. T. Ry. Co., 134 S. W. 847, thus defines a "We recognize fully the rule in this regard as to licensees; that is, persons who are not trespassers, but ......
-
Turner v. Turner
...W. 1068; Trezevant & Cochran v. Powell & Co., 130 S. W. 234; Watson v. Harris, 130 S. W. 237; Ry. Co. v. Gilbert, 130 S. W. 1037; Mack v. Ry. Co., 134 S. W. 846; W. B. Walker & Sons v. Fisk, 136 S. W. 101; Shelton v. Cain, 136 S. W. 1155; Gibbens v. Bourland, 145 S. W. 274; National Lumber ......