San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Beam
| Decision Date | 02 March 1899 |
| Citation | 50 S.W. 411 |
| Parties | SAN ANTONIO & A. P. RY. CO. v. BEAM.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Harris county; William H. Wilson, Judge.
Action by W. J. Beam against the San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
O. T. Holt, for appellant. Wheeler & Rhodes and Fisher, Sears & Sherwood, for appellee.
This action was brought by the appellee for the recovery of damages for personal injuries received by him through the alleged negligence of the appellant in the operation of its railroad. Appellee was a brakeman in the employ of the appellant, and in that capacity, on July 14, 1897, at night, was undertaking to couple an engine to a car on appellant's track at Serbin station, in Lee county. The place where the injury occurred was on a side or house track, and appellee was riding on the pilot of the engine to the place where the car to which the engine was to be coupled stood. The coupling to be made was known as a "pilot-bar coupling." While appellee was standing on the blade of the pilot, and the engine was within 75 or 100 feet of the car, the engine ran over a low joint in the track, and jolted so that the appellee slipped off the pilot and fell on the track, and was run over. His left arm was cut off at the shoulder. He was riding on the pilot in the manner customary and usual when a pilot-bar coupling is to be made. He did not know the defective condition of the track at the place where he was injured, and had never been over it before that night, but on that night he had ridden over the track twice before he was hurt. The first time he rode on a car, and the second time on the tank of the engine, on neither of which would the jolt in passing over the low joint be so great as that of the engine. Appellee was injured by the negligence of the appellant in having a defective track, by reason of the low joint therein, which caused the engine to jolt so as to throw him off the pilot, on which he was riding. There was evidence that the pilot was lower than the standard height, and that this defect would cause it to strike the track, and cause a jolt or jar. Plaintiff was injured without fault on his part. Appellee was 31 years of age, and was earning at the time of the injury from $70 to $80 a month. By reason of the loss of his arm, he is not able to do any railroad work, but at the time of the trial was conducting, with a partner, a small grocery store, and was earning very little. He was an experienced railroad man, having been in such service about 10 years. He is not qualified for any other business. The appellant has presented numerous assignments of error for which it seeks the reversal of the judgment below. We shall notice them briefly in the order in which they are presented:
The first assignment is upon paragraph 3 of the charge of the court, which is claimed to be erroneous because there was no evidence that the plaintiff was riding on the pilot blade while engaged in the discharge of any duties to the defendant, nor that it was necessary for him to be upon the pilot beam at the time, and under the circumstances attending the accident. Quite to the contrary, there was ample evidence to support this instruction. It was shown that it was proper and customary for a brakeman to ride upon the pilot, when about to make a pilot-bar coupling, and that it was for that purpose that he was then upon the pilot.
We do not think that paragraph 6 of the charge, complained of under the second assignment of error, was erroneous. It was as follows: "If, from the evidence, you believe that the plaintiff, in riding upon said pilot or pilot blade, was not doing so in the ordinary and proper discharge of his duties as a brakeman, but was doing so for his own convenience, and that he was not required or permitted to ride on said pilot in the discharge of the duties of his service, then, if you so find, you will find for the defendant." By the language "not permitted," the jury would understand that the plaintiff would not be in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Williams
...of in this assignment. Again, the objection to this evidence seems to go to its weight, rather than its admissibility. Railway Co. v. Beam (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. 411; Railway Co. v. Johnson, 83 Tex. 628, 19 S. W. Error is assigned to the admission of the evidence of M. A. Roberts on dire......
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. Stanley, 516
...S.W. 553 (1909, wr. ref.); International & G.N .R. Co. v. Villareal, 36 Tex.Civ.App. 532, 82 S.W. 1063 (1904); San Antonio & A.P. Ry. Co. v. Beam, 50 S.W. 411 (Tex.Civ.App. 1899); Galloway v. San Antonio & G. Ry. Co., 78 S.W. 32 (Tex.Civ.App.1903); Galveston, H. & S.A. Ry. Co. v. Ford, 22 T......
-
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Sowers
...full statement, as it should be, it can be said that the questions raised by it have been decided adversely to appellant. Railway v. Beam (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. 411; Railway v. Waller, 27 Civ. App. 44, 65 S. W. 210. These cases also dispose of the second, sixth, and seventh assignments o......
-
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Williams
...statements of a conclusion, but statements of a fact. Railway Co. v. Villareal, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 532, 82 S. W. 1063; Railway Co. v. Beam (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. 411; Galloway v. Railway Company (Tex. Civ. App.) 78 S. W. We have considered all the assignments, and as to those not here dis......