Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Martin
| Decision Date | 02 February 1898 |
| Citation | 44 S.W. 703 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. MARTIN.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from district court, Hill county; J. M. Hall, Judge.
Action by John B. Martin against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Stanley, Spoonts & Thompson, T. S. Miller, and Robt. Harrison, for appellant. Smith & Phillips and Humphreys & McLean, for appellee.
The appellee, John B. Martin, sued the appellant for $20,000 damages for personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted through the negligence of appellant in running its engine upon him. The grounds of negligence averred are: (1) The failure of appellant's employés, in operating the engine, to blow the whistle and ring the bell, in compliance with statute, before reaching the point upon the track where the injuries occurred; (2) in running the engine at a high and dangerous rate of speed at the time of the collision; and (3) in failing to warn appellee of the danger when it became apparent to appellant's servants operating the engine. As a defense, the appellant pleaded contributory negligence.
On the 27th day of June, 1896, the appellee desired to take passage upon one of appellant's trains at Itasca for Ft. Worth, Tex., and, having missed the regular passenger train on that morning, intended to take passage on one of appellant's local freight trains, which carried passengers between said points. This train had been pushed up by an engine on a side track opposite the north corner of the depot, the main track being between it and the depot. After the train was pushed up, the engine was moved south down to a switch, and had to run up the main track beyond the depot, and then be switched down on the side track, and coupled with said train; it being the engine which was to pull out upon the arrival of the south-bound train, which was then due and momentarily expected. Appellee's valise was setting at the southwest corner of the depot. He knew that it was about time for the train to leave upon which he intended to take passage, and picked up his valise, glanced south to where the engine that struck him was operating, about 250 yards away, which appeared to him to be switching, but he did not notice whether it was in motion or not. He then took his way in a northwesterly direction, through a crowd of people who were scattered along the platform, for a distance of about 70 feet,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saint Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Cleere
...in the case, appellant was not liable. 154 Mass. 403; 155 Mass. 44; 165 Mass. 264; 156 Mass. 180; 158 Mass. 10; 4 L. R. A. 632; 74 F. 299; 44 S.W. 703; 57 F. 826; 73 F. 627; 61 555; 150 U.S. 248; 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 460. The first instruction given was abstract and misleading. 16 Ala. 53;......
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Tomlinson
-
Wichita Falls, R. & Ft. W. Ry. Co. v. Emberlin.
...of Price, was upon some subject other than that of exercising ordinary care for his own safety. Of like import are M., K. & T. Ry. v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.) 44 S. W. 703 (writ of error denied); Bennett v. St. L. S. W. Ry., 36 Tex. Civ. App. 459, 82 S. W. 333 (writ of error denied). Accordi......
-
Lancaster v. Browder
...by the Courts of Civil Appeals in the following cases, in each of which a writ of error was denied by our Supreme Court: M., K. & T. Ry. v. Martin, 44 S. W. 703; Bennett v. St. L. S. W. Ry., 36 Tex. Civ. App. 459, 82 S. W. 333. The following decisions by the Courts of Civil Appeals were to ......