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

• Decision Date: 22 May 1909
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Parties: MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. FARRIS.

120 S.W. 535

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

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

May 22, 1909.

Rehearing Denied June 19, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; T. D. Montrose, Judge.

Suit by George Farris against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Coke, Miller & Coke and Templeton, Craddock, Crosby & Dinsmore, for appellant. T. B. Wilkins, Looney & Clark, and Wolfe, Hare & Maxey, for appellee.

RAINEY, C. J.

Appellee was injured in a collision of trains operated by appellant, on October 27, 1907, in Dallas county, Tex. Suit was brought by his father, as next friend, against the railway company. Defendant interposed a general denial in defense. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant prosecutes this appeal.

The evidence fully sustains appellee's claim that he was a passenger on one of appellant's trains at the time of the collision, and that said collision was the result of the negligence of appellant's servants in operating the trains, and that he was injured in such a manner as entitled him to the damages assessed by the jury.

The court did not err in overruling defendant's exceptions to the allegations of plaintiff's petition relating to the nature of his injuries, as the same were sufficiently full and specific to apprise the defendant of what it would be called upon to defend against.

The fourth assignment complains of the third paragraph of the court's charge as being upon the weight of the evidence. If it be conceded, which we do not, that the charge was on the weight of the evidence as assuming certain facts, there was no error in said charge. The uncontradicted evidence shows that plaintiff was a passenger on one of appellant's trains at the time of the collision, that he was severely injured, and that the collision was due to the negligence of the employés of appellant.

The verdict, $23,750, is assailed as being excessive. Under this assignment we quote some of the testimony which goes to support the verdict. George Farris testified: "I am 19 years old. My home is at Celeste, Tex. I live with Prof. Perrin, and have lived with him about five years. I was living with him sorter as one of the family and working around the house for my board. During the time I have been living with Prof. Perrin, I have done nearly everything aside from working for my board. I went to school while I was there. Aside from the work I did for Prof. Perrin for my board, I had to work to buy my clothes and pay for my tuition and buy my books. I worked on the farm mostly. To pay for my clothes and books and pay my tuition, I would work on Saturdays, and, when school was out, after school. I had a little crop of my own the last two years. I would work it after school. When I would get off from my last lesson, I would go home and work, hoe, or pick cotton after school hours. I made three bales of cotton the first year. I had to pay about one-fourth of the cotton for the rent of the land. I suppose the cotton was worth $125 or $150. When I went to school last, I was studying arithmetic, grammar, Latin, and spelling. At Prof. Perrin's, I milked the cows and cut up the wood and would go to town, cook sometimes, and wash dishes, or anything that came up, and work the garden. I was going to school because I wanted to get sufficient education to run business, wanted to acquire sufficient education to qualify me to attend to business. My father was a widower, my mother was dead, and I had gone to live with Prof. Perrin and wife. I had worked a whole lot on the farm before I got hurt. I was born on the farm and had been there all my life, and commenced carrying water, the first work I did on the farm. I have hoed, plowed, and harvested, and done almost all kinds of work on the farm. I had a very good chance to go to school and thought I needed the schooling. If anything came up that suited me better than farming, I wanted to be prepared to take hold of it. I have taken drinks, but am not in the habit of it. I never was intoxicated in my life. Since I was in this wreck, I have just read what I could, but could not read much because my eyes hurt and I took the headache. I have not been engaged in any kind of work since then because I was not able to, and am not now able to do any kind of work."

This testimony is fully corroborated by other witnesses and seems not to be disputed. On the question of appellee's injuries, he testified: "When the collision came, it seemed like something came right back in here on me, struck me on my back and head. I felt numb, and it hurt me and mashed me down. I could not fall forward, and therefore it just mashed me down over toward my front. That hurt me at...