San Antonio St. Ry. Co. v. Helm

• Decision Date: 08 May 1885
• Docket Number: Case No. 5487.
• Citation: 64 Tex. 147
• Parties: SAN ANTONIO STREET RAILWAY CO. v. JAMES L. HELM AND E. C. HELM.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

64 Tex. 147

SAN ANTONIO STREET RAILWAY CO.

v.JAMES L. HELM AND E. C. HELM.

Case No. 5487.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 8, 1885.

APPEAL from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. G. H. Noonan.

This suit was instituted on the 27th day of August, 1883, by the appellees, Helm and wife, to recover $25,000 damages for personal injuries sustained by Mrs. Helm on the 12th day of the same month, through the negligence of appellant's employees. Plaintiffs (appellees) alleged in the pleadings that defendant was a common carrier of passengers for hire, and that Mrs. Helm was a passenger on one of the defendant's cars at the time of the injury, and was in a delicate situation from pregnancy. That, as she was cautiously attempting to step from the car to the ground, the car started suddenly, through negligence of the driver, and threw her with great violence to the ground, by which she sustained serious injuries, being bruised badly upon the right hip, and causing a violent shock to her nervous system. That she was confined to her bed constantly for weeks afterwards, being continually threatened with miscarriage, greatly endangering her life.

The defendant below pleaded general denial and contributory negligence. The jury returned a verdict of $900 for plaintiff, and a motion for a new trial being overruled, defendant appealed.

Houston Bros., for appellant, on the charge of the court, cited: Willis v. McNeill, 57 Tex., 465;Glasscock v. Schell, 57 Tex., 215; I. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Ormund, Tex. Law Rev., vol. 4, No. 18, p. 263.

J. H. McLeary, for appellees, on the same subject, cited: Gal. Oil Co. v. Malin, 60 Tex., 649;Shook v. Peters, 59 Tex., 393;Endick v. Endick, 61 Tex., 560;Powell v. Haley, 28 Tex., 55, 56.

STAYTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

The statement of the cause of action, and of the nature of the defense, made by the court, was correct as far as it went, but not full.

This, however, could have been corrected, if deemed necessary by the appellant, through a charge giving a fuller statement; but this was not asked, and in such case the appellant has no just ground of complaint.

The fifth instruction given contains a correct exposition of the law applicable to the question of the liability of the appellant, and as to the measure of damages; and if, in the latter respect, it was thought not to be sufficiently specific, a proper charge should have been asked.

There is nothing in the evidence and verdict to induce the belief that the very formal character of the charge, as to the measure of damages, operated to the prejudice of the appellant.

Taken all...