Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Amarillo St. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 19 December 1914 |
Docket Number | (No. 643.) |
Citation | 171 S.W. 1103 |
Parties | PECOS & N. T. RY. CO. v. AMARILLO ST. RY. CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Jas. N. Browning, Judge.
Action by the Pecos & Northern Texas Railway Company against the Amarillo Street Railway Company and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Terry, Cavin & Mills, of Galveston, and Madden, Trulove & Kimbrough, of Amarillo (F. M. Ryburn, of Amarillo, of counsel), for appellant. Crudgington & Works, of Amarillo, for appellees.
This suit was instituted by the appellant, the Pecos & Northern Texas Railway Company, against the Amarillo Street Railway Company, appellee. The statement of the cause of action by appellant, and acquiesced in by appellee, is as follows:
It will be unnecessary at this time to set out the answer of the appellee.
The first assignment of error is to the effect that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and evidence, in that the evidence conclusively shows that the defendant permitted the accumulation of trash, rubbish, etc., in the subway, and that they caught fire, which was communicated to the bridge and caused its destruction.
Without discussing the evidence or setting it out, we overrule this objection, holding that the testimony is not conclusive that the fire originated in the rubbish, etc., and the fire was thereby communicated to the bridge. For that reason the assignment will be overruled; and, in this connection, we overrule appellee's contention that the evidence is conclusive that the fire did not so originate as would render it liable, and that any error the court might have committed would be harmless for the reason that the jury could not have lawfully rendered any other verdict than they did. The evidence we do not regard as conclusive as against either the appellant or the appellee; but there are facts and circumstances for and against both, from which an inference might be drawn by the jury, either supporting the one or defeating the other. Contention on the part of both appellant and appellee in this particular will be overruled.
The second, third, and fourth assignments of error relate to the charge of the court given in this case, and the sixth assignment, to the refusal of the court to give the appellant's specially requested charge. The court in the third paragraph of its charge, instructed the jury as follows:
The fifth paragraph is:
"Under the terms of the written contracts of March 26, 1908, and of August 12, 1908, between plaintiff and the defendant street railway company, read in evidence before you, it was the duty of the said street railway company to exercise ordinary care to keep the entire subway or underground crossing under plaintiff's bridge free from all rubbish and inflammable material which could or might cause fire to originate and damage or destroy said bridge."
In the sixth paragraph the court instructed the jury to bear in mind the foregoing instructions, and if they should find from the evidence the defendants "negligently allowed rubbish and inflammable material," etc., to accumulate, and that the bridge caught fire from any cause which was communicated to the bridge from such burning material, and destroyed, etc.
The appellant requested the court, in specially requested charge No. 1, to charge the jury that under the contract sued on the liability of the parties would be governed thereby with reference to the causeway, and instructed them what the provisions of the contract were with reference to fire, and concluded:
"Therefore, if you believe from the evidence before you that the defendant street railway failed to keep said entire subway free from all rubbish and inflammable matter as provided in said contract, and that said bridge or any part thereof was destroyed by fire directly or indirectly originating from such inflammable matter, if any, which may have been allowed to accumulate in said subway by the defendant Amarillo Street Railway Company, then you will find in favor of the plaintiff, whether said fire may have been set in such inflammable material, if any, by the train of the plaintiff company, or by the public."
This charge the court refused.
Section 2 of article 1 of the contract, is as follows:
"The Amarillo Company (appellee) shall construct its railroad on the P. & N. T. Company's right of way into and through the subway or undergrade crossing, as herein provided, at its own cost and expense, and shall at all times during its right to use said subway or undergrade crossing, at its own cost and expense properly drain and keep passable and free from all rubbish and inflammable matter the entire subway."
Section 6 of article 2 is that:
"The Amarillo Company shall indemnify and save harmless and free from all loss the Pecos & Northern Texas Company against the damage or destruction of said subway or any part thereof by fire, which may be directly or indirectly caused by or originated from inflammable material which may be allowed to accumulate in said subway by the Amarillo Company, whether said fire may be set by the trains of the Pecos & Northern Texas Company or the electric wires of said Amarillo Company, or by the public."
As the appellee contends in this case that the action brought by appellant is one sounding in tort or for negligence, we quote the following paragraph from the petition:
In testing the charge of the court given in this case, it will be necessary to inquire into the nature of the action brought; that is, whether it is ex contractu or ex delicto, and whether a breach of a contract or a suit in tort. It could not in the strict legal sense be a suit in tort; that is, "a wrong done independent of contract." But there are wrongs which will maintain an action on the case, known to the common-law pleading, committed in the nonobservance of duties which are but the implication of contract obligation. Wherever there is carelessness, want of reasonable skill, or the violation or disregard of duty which the law implies from the conditions or attendant circumstances, and individual injury results therefrom, an action in tort lies in favor of the party injured. If the transaction had its origin in a contract which places the parties in such relation as that in performing or attempting to perform the service promised the wrong is committed, then the breach of the contract is not the gravamen of the action. There may be no technical breach of the letter of the contract;...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
International Printing Pressmen and Ass'Ts Un. v. Smith
...sec. 47. This is so because a wrong outside the letter of the contract furnishes the gravamen of the suit. Pecos & N. T. R. Co. v. Amarillo St. R. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 171 S.W. 1103. Respondent apparently regarded his cause of action as one in tort; otherwise there appears no reason to plead ......
-
Gehring v. Strakos
...sufficient barriers, lights, warnings and signs in front of such excavations to warn the traveling public of the danger thereof.' The Amarillo court had this to say with reference to Schwalbe's "There are wrongs which will maintain an action on the case, known to the common-law pleading, co......
-
Fuchs v. Parsons Const. Co.
...in a sense involving a breach of the duty thereby imposed, would give rise to an action ex delicto.' In Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Amarillo St. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 171 S.W. 1103, it is said: 'A cause of action arising from breach of a promise is an 'action ex contractu,' and when a duty, f......
-
Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., Ltd.
...that furnishes the occasion for the tort, the tort, not the contract, is the basis of the action."); Pecos & N.T. Ry. Co. v. Amarillo St. Ry. Co., 171 S.W. 1103 (Tex.Civ.App.1914) ("if the transaction ... [has] its origin in a contract which places the parties in such relation as that in pe......