Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Wortham

• Decision Date: 12 February 1889
• Citation: 10 S.W. 741
• Parties: MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO. <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> WORTHAM.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

10 S.W. 741

MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO. et al.

v. WORTHAM.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 12, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Houston county.

Action by Mrs. C. A. Wortham against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company and the International & Great Northern Railroad Company for injuries received in alighting from a train. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Burnett & Hays, for appellants. Nunn & Denny, for appellee.

GAINES, J.

This was an action brought in the court below by appellee against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company and the International & Great Northern Railroad Company to recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been received by the appellee in descending from a car of the appellant companies. The injury is alleged to have occurred by reason of the negligent failure of appellants to provide safe means for her descent. The undisputed facts are that appellee and her daughter purchased tickets at San Antonio, and took passage on appellants' train from that point to Crockett. At Taylor it became necessary to change cars. On approaching the last-named place, the car upon which they were traveling stopped at the regular stopping place, but at a point where there was no platform. A stool in the shape of a box, about 11 inches square on the top, and somewhat larger at the bottom, and constructed for the purpose, was placed upon the ground in front of the car-steps to aid passengers in alighting. The appellee left the car after it had reached the station, but in descending she fell, and received the injury of which she complains. There can be but little doubt that the box overturned with her as she stepped upon it. As to the circumstances attending the accident the testimony was conflicting. The appellee, her daughter, and another passenger deposed that she was not assisted in descending from the car by any one. The conductor, the brakeman, and porter on the train testified that they saw the accident, and that the brakeman assisted her in alighting. They were corroborated on this point by two of the passengers. The appellee and her daughter testified that the ground upon which the box was placed was rocky and uneven, but the kind and size of the stones they do not state. The passenger who testified for appellee gave testimony to the same effect, but it is evident he did not know whether stones were broken rocks or mere pebbles. A son-in-law of appellee testified that he saw the ground some time previous to the accident, and that there were fragments of broken rock upon it. Four of defendants' witnesses deposed that the ground was covered with gravel, and was level and smooth as gravel could make it. The testimony of these witnesses also tended to show that plaintiff's fall was caused by her stepping upon the edge of the stool. Such being the evidence, we must hold that appellants' first assignment of error, which calls in question its sufficiency to sustain the verdict, is not well taken. Notwithstanding the testimony of part of appellants that boxes of this character were in general use upon railroads to assist passengers in alighting, and that several passengers used the same box upon this occasion, and that none of them were injured, we do not think that the jury were bound to conclude that the appellants, in using it, exercised that high degree of care which their duty to the appellee required. She was a passenger alighting from the car upon which she had been traveling, to take another, and to complete her trip under her contract with appellants. They owed her the duty of providing, not only a reasonably safe appliance for enabling her to alight, in order to make the transfer, but the...