Paris & G. N. R. Co. v. Flanders
| Decision Date | 20 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2771.) |
| Citation | 179 S.W. 263 |
| Parties | PARIS & G. N. R. CO. et al. v. FLANDERS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Charles Flanders against the Paris & Great Northern Railroad Company and others. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (165 S. W. 98), and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Terry, Cavin & Mills, of Galveston, Andrews, Streetman, Burns & Logue, of Houston, and Wright & Patrick, of Paris, for plaintiffs in error. Carlock & Carlock, of Ft. Worth, for defendant in error.
The suit of the defendant in error, Flanders, for damages on account of personal injuries suffered while engaged in his duties as a switchman in the employ of the plaintiffs in error, was predicated upon two distinct issues of negligence, and each of them was submitted by the court in its general charge to the jury. One was permitting a road engine to stand in the railway yards where Flanders was working at night—at the time of his injury setting the brakes on a car which had been shunted or "kicked in" by the switch engine on a side track, and which violently collided with another car stationary on the track, causing him to be thrown to the ground—with its electric headlight brilliantly burning, which, it was claimed, had the effect of blinding him, and rendering his work dangerous by obscuring his vision, and because of which he was unable to set the brakes on the car before the collision.
The honorable Court of Civil Appeals, upon the original hearing, reversed the judgment obtained by Flanders in the trial court because of the submission of this issue, holding that, while there was sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that this was an act of negligence, yet, under the evidence, it could not have contributed to the injury. On rehearing it affirmed the trial court judgment, because of its view that the error in submitting the issue had been invited by certain instructions requested on the trial by the railway company. The writ of error was granted on this latter ruling. It presents the only question which it is necessary to discuss; on all other questions the judgment, in our opinion, being entitled to affirmance.
The rule of invited error rests in the principle of estoppel; its reason being that a party is in no position to complain of an error which he has induced the court to commit. It may easily be carried too far, especially in the case of requested instructions, which, in general, are as often framed by counsel for the purpose of adapting the submission of issues to what are understood to be the views of the court upon the questions involved as inducing the submission of a particular issue, or an issue in a particular way. The consequence of an evident error on the part of the court substantially affecting a party's rights and depriving the trial of the legal character which it is the duty of the court to maintain ought not to be avoided by its technical application. For their elements of finality and conclusiveness the judgments of courts are dependent upon a legal trial. The conduct of the proceeding so as to insure such a trial is an obligation resting primarily upon the court itself; and the responsibility for the court's action in the commission of hurtful errors ought not to be transferred to a litigant unless it is reasonably plain that through the action of his counsel he is equally chargeable with the mistake. As...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
South Chester Tube Co. v. Texhoma Oil & Refining Co.
...Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 233 S. W. 1011; Poindexter v. Receivers of Kirby Lumber Co., 101 Tex. 322, 107 S. W. 42; Paris & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Flanders, 107 Tex. 326, 179 S. W. 263. As stated, appellant called for the finding of the jury upon the very issue on which the judgment of the court is fou......
-
Rishworth v. Moss
...a case plaintiff cannot be heard to complain of the action of the court. We find, however, that in the recent case of Paris & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Flanders, 179 S. W. 263, our Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the doctrine of invited error can easily be carried too far, and suggested tha......
-
Independent Shope Brick Co. v. Dugger
...their first counter proposition aforesaid: Poindexter v. Receivers, Kirby Lumber Co., 101 Tex. 322, 107 S. W. 42; P. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Flanders, 107 Tex. 326, 179 S. W. 263; Hanrick v. Hanrick, 110 Tex. 59, 173 S. W. 211, 214 S. W. 321; St. L., B. & M. Ry. Co. v. West, 62 Tex. Civ. App. ......
-
Nabors v. Colorado & S. Ry. Co.
...them in their pleadings and testimony." Banks v. House, 50 S. W. 1022, affirmed in 93 Tex. 58, 53 S. W. 338; Paris & G. N. Railroad Co. v. Flanders, 107 Tex. 326, 179 S. W. 263; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Maxwell, 130 S. W. 722; Hildebrand v. Head, 88 S. W. The judgment is affirmed. ...