Melton v. Texas & N. O. R. Co.
Decision Date | 02 July 1923 |
Docket Number | (No. 2706.) |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Parties | MELTON v. TEXAS & N. O. R. CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
Action by W. S. Melton against the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The appellant sued for damages for alleged personal injuries sustained while he, employed as a section hand, was unloading cross-ties from a car. After hearing the evidence the court peremptorily instructed a verdict in favor of the railroad company. The appeal is to revise the ruling of the court.
The appellant was the only witness testifying as to how his alleged injury happened, and the cause of it. It appears that a flat car loaded with 438 cross-ties arranged lengthwise in four tiers was left on the side track at Lagow switch in order to have the section crew unload 125 of them for use in the track on that section. Some of the ties were hewn, and some sawed, and all of them had been creosoted. The section foreman, appellant, and four other members of the regular section crew went in a hand car to the switch, and then set the hand car off the track. Appellant first climbed on the car loaded with the cross-ties, followed by the foreman and the four other members of the crew. Appellant went to the southwest corner of the car to cut a wire, and then he and Fuquo went over to the north end of the car, and the foreman and the three other members of the crew remained at the south end of the car to unload the ties. Appellant and Fuquo, standing on top of the ties, threw off five or six cross-ties that were loose, and the appellant, without Fuquo's assistance, shoved off two ties at the second tier. Appellant undertook to shove off a third cross-tie, and, as he bent forward and downward to take hold of the end of it, his foot slipped on the cross-tie that he was standing on, and he fell to the ground, causing him, as he claims, to sustain bodily injuries. Quoting from appellant's testimony:
He further testified:
No specific directions were given by the foreman to his crew as to the particular manner in which the ties were to be unloaded. Appellant was a man of mature years and of good intelligence, and was familiar with his duties.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
August v. Texas & N. O. R. Co.
...employee does the work alone without seeking or asking for assistance. Hines v. Ross, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 1066; Melton v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 254 S.W. 510; Jarvis v. Erwin Cotton Mills Co., 194 N.C. 687, 140 S.E. 602; 39 C.J., p. 525, Sec. When the foregoing principles ar......
-
Batson Hatten Lumber Co. v. Thames
...upon; but the proximate cause of the injury stands out so closely that the court should have directed a verdict for appellant. Melton v. R. R. Co., 254 S.W. 510; Hunter Busy Bee Co., 271 S.W. 800; Hines v. Ross, 230 S.W. 1066. The master is not liable for the further reason, that the pinch ......
-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Coker
...employee does the work alone without seeking or asking for assistance. Hines v. Ross, Tex.Civ. App., 230 S.W. 1066; Melton v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 254 S.W. 510; Jarvis v. Erwin Cotton Mills Co., 194 N.C. 687, 140 S.E. 602; 39 C.J. p. 525, Sec. In Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea ......
-
Cate v. Orfic Gasoline Production Co., 1358.
...his injuries were the result of conforming to a specific order, direction, or instruction of the superintendent. Melton v. Texas & N. O. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 254 S. W. 510. Had the defendants thus demanded or such labors on his part, a different case would be presented. While the labor w......