Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Williams
| Decision Date | 09 March 1910 |
| Citation | 125 S.W. 881 |
| Parties | MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. WILLIAMS et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Ellen Williams and others against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. A judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (117 S. W. 1043), and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Coke, Miller & Coke and Head, Dillard, Smith & Head, for plaintiff in error. Wolfe, Hare & Maxey, for defendants in error.
The defendants in error (plaintiffs), who are the widow and children of R. L. Williams, recovered the judgment under review against plaintiff in error (defendant) for damages in respect of his death, which occurred while he was in the service of the defendant as locomotive engineer in this way: As he was passing the station of Peniel in the engine cab of a freight train, he put his head out of the side window of his cab to see to the working of the injector, which he had just put in operation to force water from the tender into the boiler, when he was struck above the temple near the top of the head by the end of one of the beams of a mail crane near the track, and was instantly killed. That he was acting in the proper discharge of his duty was shown, and is not disputed. The defendant was charged by plaintiffs with negligence (1) in locating the crane too near the track; and (2) in allowing the ties in the track near it to be in such rotten condition as to allow the engine to rock and sway so as to cause the collision. The charge of the court submitted both the issues thus made by the pleadings, leaving it to the jury to say whether or not there was negligence which caused the injury in either respect. The assignments of error assert that the evidence did not justify the submission of either.
With respect to the crane the evidence shows that it was erected by defendant, for its own convenience, to hold mail sacks extended between the ends of its beams, so that they could be taken off by catcher bars reaching out from the mail coaches of moving trains without stopping them. There is evidence to the effect that all that was essential to the proper operation of this contrivance was that the mail sack should be so near the passing train that the end of the catcher bar would extend beyond it. The distance between the end of the beam, contact with which killed Williams, and the side of the mail coaches, which is the same as that between the beam and the side of Williams' cab, and also the distance for which the catcher bar extended outward, were shown, from which it appears mathematically that the beam might have been put further from the sides of the cars and of the cabs of the engines and still have allowed the end of the catcher bar to extend beyond the mail sack. The evidence also indicates that these catcher bars are not of uniform length, and that all the cranes are not located the same distance from the track. There is no expert or other evidence than these facts from which the question whether or not the crane was located with proper skill and care can be determined.
Concerning the condition of the track, there is evidence that the ends of some of the cross-ties close to the crane, and on the side of the track nearest it, were so rotten that the rail had sunk into some of them a quarter to a half an inch; that for 20 feet none of the spikes on the inside of the rail nearest to the crane were driven down close against the iron, and some of those on the outside of the rail were in the same condition, and those in the rotten ties stood up an inch and a half or two inches above the flange of the rail; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. Local 46, Metallic Lathers Union and Reinforcing Iron Workers of New York and Vicinity of the Intern. Ass'n of Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers
...condition or existence at the time in question depends on the circumstances of the particular case."); Missouri, Kan. & Tex. Ry. v. Williams, 103 Tex. 228, 125 S.W. 881, 882-83 (1910) (providing a classic statement of the evidentiary principle that "[w]hen the question is as to a condition ......
-
Salem v. United States Lines Company, 283
...condition of things must have existed, those facts called upon the defendant to make that reason known.' Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. Williams, 103 Tex. 228, 231, 125 S.W. 881, 882; and see Poignant v. United States, 2 Cir., 225 F.2d 595, 602 (concurring There is another question to be decide......
-
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Hurdle
... ... v. Davenport, 102 Tex. 369, 117 S. W. 790; s. c., 110 S. W. 150; Railway Co. v. Younger, 90 Tex. 387, 38 S. W. 1121; Railway Co. v. Wallace, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 127, 115 S. W. 303; Railway Co. v. Rutland, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 621, 101 S. W. 529; Gray v. Phillips, 117 S. W. 870; Railway Co. v. Williams, 117 S. W. 1043, affirmed (Sup.) 125 S. W. 881; Railway Co. v. White, 120 S. W. 959, affirmed (Sup.) 131 S. W. 811 ... If appellant desired a charge limiting a recovery by plaintiffs to the pecuniary loss which the husband sustained, in determining which the cost of maintaining ... ...
-
Boldt v. San Antonio Traction Co.
...that they came in contact with each other, was not negligence which was the proximate cause of the injury to appellant. Railway v. Williams, 103 Tex. 228, 125 S. W. 881; San Antonio Traction Co. v. Bryant, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 437, 70 S. W. The rule adopted by appellee, prohibiting cars from p......