San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Wallace
| Decision Date | 25 March 1890 |
| Citation | 13 S.W. 565 |
| Parties | SAN ANTONIO & A. P. RY. CO. <I>v.</I> WALLACE <I>et al.</I> |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
S. C. Patton, for appellant. Foard, Thompson & Townsend, for appellees.
Frank Wallace, while employed as conductor on a freight train of appellant, was knocked off of the top of a box-car on which he was standing by a scaffold suspended from the upper portion of a truss-bridge spanning the Colorado river, and on which appellant's railroad was constructed and crossed said stream. From the injuries then received, Wallace died; and this suit is the result, in which the plaintiffs (appellees here) recovered damages in the sum of $15,000, apportioned among them as follows: To each of the deceased, seven surviving children, $1,750; to his surviving widow, $2,750. The defendant appeals, and, as grounds for a reversal of the judgment, assigns several errors, all of which it may not, we think, be essential to discuss.
The bridge above referred to, although newly constructed, had been in use for some time; and appellant's trains had been crossing said river on it as the business of its road demanded. But the arches on the east span, it appears, were not completed. For the purpose of completing them, a scaffold was used. This scaffold was suspended by ropes, and hung on blocks and tackle so, in the language of one of the witnesses, "it could be raised or lowered so it would not strike a smoke-stack or knock anybody off." On the 21st of July, 1887, at about 2 o'clock P. M., the train of which Wallace was conductor and in charge approached the bridge from the west, going east, and stopped on the west side of the bridge and river to discharge a small quantity of freight. It consisted of the engine, (which, when stopped, was standing on the west end of the bridge,) about five box and eight flat cars, and the caboose. When the freight was put off, Wallace, who was standing near the track, signaled the engineer to proceed, in obedience to which signal the train moved slowly across the river on the bridge, at the rate of about two or three miles an hour. From the point where Wallace stood to the caboose, a distance of about 40 yards along the side of the track, it was impassable, says a witness, in the night-time, by reason of bridge timber, ties, etc., scattered about. Wallace caught the ladder of the second or third box-car from the engine as it passed by, and climbed up on the top of the car. When this car, on which Wallace stood, passed under the scaffold, suspended as before explained, he was knocked off by it, his leg or foot crushed, and other injuries sustained by him, resulting in his death a short time after reaching Eagle Lake station. There was evidence that he could have boarded the flat-cars and walked, without danger, to the caboose on them. There was testimony to the effect that it was customary and sometimes the duty of the conductor of a freight train to stand on the top of a box-car, when necessary to assist in braking, signaling, or coupling, or when switching at stations. Rule 26 of the company, which, it was shown, had been furnished to Wallace, and his attention called to it, prohibited all persons from standing on top of covered cars while passing through truss-bridges. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Ravanelli
...constituted negligence should not have been submitted to the jury. In Railway v. Ryan, 69 Tex. 665, 7 S. W. 83, and Railway v. Wallace, 76 Tex. 636, 13 S. W. 565, it was held that the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence because they were violating a rule of the company at the ......
-
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Brown
...30 S. W. 85; Railway Co. v. Gormley, 91 Tex. 394, 43 S. W. 877; Pilkenton v. Railway Co., 70 Tex. 229, 7 S. W. 805; Railway Co. v. Wallace, 76 Tex. 637, 13 S. W. 565; Culpepper v. Railway Co., 90 Tex. 627, 40 S. W. 386; Railway Co. v. Ryan, 69 Tex. 665, 7 S. W. 83; Railroad Co. v. Kitchens,......
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Boyd
...Railway Co. v. Richards, 59 Tex. 377; Rucker v. Railway Co., 61 Tex. 499; Railway Co. v. Ryan, 69 Tex. 665, 7 S. W. 83; Railway Co. v. Wallace, 76 Tex. 636, 13 S. W. 565; Railway Co. v. Moore, 49 Tex. 47; Railway Co. v. Jones, 95 U. S. 443; Griggs v. Houston, 104 U. S. 553; O'Brien v. Steel......
-
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Bodie
...train in violation of a known rule of the company, no excuse for his conduct being shown, the company was not liable. In Railway v. Wallace, 76 Tex. 636, 13 S. W. 565, it was held that where the servant was injured by reason of his being on the top of a box car while the train was crossing ......