Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Hannig

• Decision Date: 20 December 1897
• Parties: MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. HANNIG.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 508

43 S.W. 508

MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. HANNIG.

Supreme Court of Texas.

December 20, 1897.

Error to court of civil appeals of Second supreme judicial district.

Action for negligent personal injury by William Hannig against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the court of civil appeals (41 S. W. 196), and the defendant brings error. Reversed.

Eldridge & Gardner, for plaintiff in error. L. C. Barrett, for defendant in error.

GAINES, C. J.

This suit was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error to recover damages for personal injuries. The conclusions of fact found by the court of civil appeals indicate in a general way the issues made upon the trial, and are as follows: "On March 18, 1896, the appellee was a section hand in the employment of the appellant. He was under the directions of William Newman, as a vice principal. He was engaged, with three others (William Newman, the foreman; J. K. Dean and Henry Bachman, the last two his fellow servants), in unloading some switch points from one of the appellant's cars. These switch points were heavy, and the strength of four men was required to lift them. The appellee and William Newman were at one end of the switch points, and Dean and Bachman at the other end. Newman ordered the appellee to seize and help him lift the end of the fourth and last switch point; indicating to the plaintiff, and inducing him to believe, that he would be assisted by the foreman in lifting it. Newman, however, negligently failed to render the assistance, and the entire weight of the switch point was thus cast upon the appellee, from which, as approximate result of the negligence of Newman, he sustained injury, consisting in inguinal hernia. For this injury he recovered in this suit a verdict and judgment in the sum of $1,200, not complained of as excessive."

During the progress of the trial, the plaintiff, being upon the stand as a witness in his own behalf, was asked to state whether or not he was a married man. The defendant, by counsel, objected to the question, and its objection was overruled, whereupon the witness answered that he had a wife. The witness also was permitted to answer, over the objection of the defendant, that his wife had no means of support, except her own labor. The ruling of the court in admitting this testimony was assigned as error in the court of civil appeals, and is also assigned in this court. The court of civil appeals held that the admission of the evidence was error, but concluded that the error was harmless. We concur in their ruling that so much of the testimony as merely showed that he had a wife was not injurious to the defendant, from the fact that the wife was a witness in the case, and the jury must therefore have known that the plaintiff had a wife. But we cannot agree that the mere fact that the plaintiff was a laboring man, and was earning at the time of the accident but a dollar per day, showed that he had no other resources. In the case of Railroad Co. v. Lyde, 57 Tex. 505, the court say: "Whatever may be the rule in cases of slander and breach of promise of marriage, yet, in this character of case, where the suit is by the party himself for injuries received, although the plaintiff may show the nature of his business, and the value of his services in conducting it, as a ground for estimating damages, yet his wealth or poverty is an immaterial issue, calculated to unduly influence the verdict." The same rule was applied in the case of Railway Co. v. Harrington, 62 Tex. 597. There the court say: "That evidence was not admissible in this case, and was calculated to prejudice the rights of appellant. * * * As this evidence was improperly admitted over the objections of appellant, properly interposed, and as it cannot be determined that appellant was not injured thereby, the judgment ought to be reversed." There the wife and children were suing for damages for injuries resulting in the death of the husband and father. The court placed their...