Northern Texas Const. Co. v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 12 April 1905
• Parties: NORTHERN TEXAS CONST. CO. v. CRAWFORD.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

87 S.W. 223

NORTHERN TEXAS CONST. CO. v. CRAWFORD.^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

April 12, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Collin County; J. M. Pearson, Judge.

Action by John T. Crawford against the Northern Texas Construction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Abernathy & Abernathy and A. M. Carter, for appellant. Abernathy & Mangum, for appellee.

EIDSON, J.

This suit was brought in the court below by the appellee against the appellant to recover damages for negligently injuring him (appellee), whereby his leg was broken. The case was tried before a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee in the sum of $1,000.

Appellant's first and second assignments of error are as follows: "(1) The court erred in permitting plaintiff's witness Sol Dobson to testify: `I think it was Freeman. I am satisfied he was the boss man. He told me to drive around on the west side, and back my wagon up, and I backed my wagon back. I didn't back it square back, but angling; and just as I backed up he throwed down the skids into my wagon, and I saw he was going to pitch the bale of cotton into the wagon, and I said, "Hold up," and he said, "Stay there," and used a rough word; and I jumped out, and it went corner-ways into my wagon, and it would have gone in between my horses; and I throwed up my hands, and it went out, and sorter glanced against the right fore wheel of my wagon.' (2) It having been shown that Sol Dobson's wagon was in a different position, and a different kind of wagon, from that of Gladden's, and a different bed, the court erred in refusing to exclude this evidence."

There was no error in the admission of the testimony complained of in these assignments of error. Appellee having alleged in his petition that appellant's system of loading cotton was dangerous, and that such system was known to appellant and its servants to be dangerous, testimony showing that prior to the occasion when appellee was injured appellant used the same system or method of loading cotton as was used when the appellee received his injuries, and that the use of such system on such prior occasion was attended with danger to a person whose cotton was being loaded, or would have resulted in danger to such person had he remained in the situation he was required or expected to remain in during the progress of the loading of a bale of cotton by such method or system, tended to prove these issues. And the testimony of this witness to the effect that Freeman, on the occasion testified about, was in charge of the employés of appellant, and conducting the loading; and the testimony, showing that the said Freeman was also in charge of such employés while loading the bale of cotton on the occasion when appellee received his injuries, tended to show that Freeman knew the system he was using to be dangerous. This testimony was also admissible in view of the testimony of appellant's general manager to the effect that the system used at the time of the injury to plaintiff was the same used prior thereto, and appellant had never had an...