McCoy v. Texas Power & Light Co.
Decision Date | 27 November 1920 |
Docket Number | (No. 9407.) |
Parties | McCOY v. TEXAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Johnson County; O. L. Lockett, Judge.
Action by H. D. McCoy against Texas Power & Light Company. Judgment for defendant on demurrer, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Templeton, Beall, Williams & Callaway, of Dallas, and S. E. Padelford, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Odell, Lockett & Henry, of Cleburne, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the district court of Johnson county from a judgment sustaining the defendant's general demurrer to plaintiff's petition. On October 26, 1916, plaintiff filed his original petition, and on May 7, 1917, defendant filed its answer, containing, among other defenses, a general demurrer. On May 6, 1919, the court sustained the general demurrer, and on November 25, 1919, entered an order granting both parties leave to file amendments. On the same day plaintiff filed his amended petition, largely to the same effect as his original petition. On the same day judgment was entered sustaining defendant's general demurrer, and plaintiff has appealed.
Plaintiff sued for damages arising by reason of the death of his 14 year old son, who climbed up one of the towers erected by the defendant, the Texas Power & Light Company, on plaintiff's land, over which the defendant had a right of way. The petition, after stating the residence of the plaintiff, and that defendant was a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Texas, and having its office in Cleburne, Johnson county, and that defendant was engaged in the manufacture, transmission, and sale of electricity and electrical power at various points in the state of Texas, and that it maintained and operated transmission lines running from Waco, in McLennan county, Tex., by way of Cleburne, to Fort Worth, Tarrant county, Tex., and between various other points in said state, alleged:
It was further alleged that on October 29, 1914, plaintiff's son, Wert McCoy, was a boy about 14 years of age, and on that date went, in the discharge of his proper duties, and for the purpose of procuring some material belonging to the plaintiff, to the lot owned by plaintiff on which the tower was erected, and that attracted by the condition of said tower, as above set out, and without any notice or knowledge of the probability of danger by reason thereof, and particularly of the existence of said danger zone, as above set out, and having no notice or reason to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shannon v. Kansas City Light & Power Company
...States. New York, N. H. & Hartford Railroad v. Fruchter, 43 S.Ct. 38; United Zine & Chemical Co. v. Britt, 42 S.Ct. 299; McCoy v. Power & Light Co., 229 S.W. 623; Mayfield Water Co. v. Webb's Admr., 129 Ky. Wetherby v. Gas & Elec. Co., 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1120; Graves v. Water Power Co., 11......
-
Banker v. McLaughlin
... ... McLAUGHLIN ... No. A-1272 ... Supreme Court of Texas ... February 4, 1948 ... Rehearing Denied March 17, 1948 ... Page ... Southwestern Portland Cement Co., Tex.Com.App., 211 S.W. 929; McCoy v. Texas P. & L. Co., Tex.Com.App., 239 S.W. 1105, reversing Id., ... Gulf Production Co., Tex.Civ. App., 63 S.W.2d 248; Texas-Louisiana Power Co. v. Bihl, Tex.Com.App., 66 S. W.2d 672; Renfro Drug Co. v. Jackson, ... rule of construction that decisions are to be construed in the light of the facts on which they are based. Each of these cases involved hidden ... ...
-
The State ex rel. Kansas City Light & Power Company v. Trimble
... ... and yet the defendant was not held liable ... "In ... the case of McCoy v. Texas Power & Light Co., 229 ... S.W. 623, defendant had erected a tower on plaintiff's ... land which could be climbed pretty much as this pole ... ...
-
State v. Trimble
...was an attractive place for children to play thereon, and yet the defendant was not held liable. "In the case of McCoy v. Texas, etc., Light Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 623, defendant had erected a tower on plaintiff's land which could be climbed pretty much as this pole was, and on whic......