St. Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v. West
Decision Date | 09 January 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 8069.)<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 174 S.W. 287 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS, S. F. & T. RY. CO. v. WEST et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; Marvin H. Brown, Judge.
Action by Bettie West and others against the St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and judgment rendered for defendant.
Lockett & Rowe, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. G. R. Lipscomb, McCart, Bowlin, Terrell & McCart, and Theodore Mack, all of Ft. Worth, for appellees.
The elevator of the Empire Grain Company, the scene of the accident hereinafter related, is situated in a suburb of the city of Ft. Worth, a short distance west of the main line of the St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway Company, which, in that locality, runs practically north and south. The Arlington Heights boulevard runs east and west, and crosses the main line of the railway approximately 1,000 feet north of the elevator. A switch track runs through a shed on the east side of the elevator building. This track, which has a gradual slope from north to south, leaves the main track about 300 feet north of the boulevard, which it crosses, and diverges from the main track in a southwesterly direction until it reaches the elevator. The switch track was constructed by the railway company at the instance and for the convenience of the grain company in unloading grain from cars, but with the express agreement that the track, when constructed, should be owned by the railway company exclusively, and should be maintained, operated, and controlled by it.
On or about October 1, 1910, an engineer and fireman of the railway company undertook to place two cars in the shed of the elevator. To accomplish this the cars were kicked or shunted from a point north of the boulevard, and permitted to roll down the switch track to the elevator with no one in charge to control them or to give warning of their approach. In passing into the shed of the elevator these cars ran over and killed George W. West. Mrs. Bettie West, his widow, and Mrs. Winnie Thompson, his daughter, joined by her husband, Jack Thompson, instituted this suit against the railway company to recover damages which they allege they have sustained by reason of his death.
A trial of the suit before a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the sum of $10,000, one-half of which amount later was remitted by them. From that judgment the defendant has appealed.
Plaintiffs based their claim of defendant's liability for the death upon allegations of negligence on the part of defendant's employés: First, in shunting the cars to the elevator in the manner indicated above, with no one in control of them; second, in failing to give prior warning to George W. West, who was walking upon the track at the time in ignorance of their approach; third, in the failure of said employés to avoid the accident by the use of means at their command, after they had discovered the perilous situation of West and his ignorance of the approach of the cars, in time to have averted the accident by the use of means then at their command.
The case was submitted to the jury by a general charge, and not upon special issues. The two specifications of negligence first mentioned were the only issues of defendant's negligence submitted, and the jury were expressly told that, unless a verdict should be returned in plaintiff's favor upon one or both of those issues, then they could not recover. In other words, the charge, in effect, affirmatively excluded any right of recovery upon the issue of negligence last mentioned.
Among other defenses, the railway company pleaded specially that deceased was guilty of negligence proximately contributing to his injury, in that he was a trespasser upon the track, and, further, in that at the time of the accident he was asleep upon the track with portions of his body extending across one of the rails, and was run over by the cars while in that position.
For six or seven years prior to the accident deceased had been employed at the plant of the Ft. Worth Furniture Company, situated a short distance immediately west of the elevator, serving in the capacities of watchman and team driver, and was familiar with the premises where the accident occurred. He resided within the city limits some distance east of the main line of the railway, and left his home between 10 and 11 o'clock on the morning of the accident, which was Sunday, telling his wife that he was going to the furniture company's plant to do some work. Upon this trip he drove a small wagon, and carried with him a gun and ammunition, which he borrowed from his son-in-law the same morning for the expressed purpose of shooting pigeons that were in the habit of feeding on wasted grain around the elevator. The cars passed over him, severing both legs, and mutilating other portions of his body. He was 58 years old, and in good health at the time of his death, but his hearing was slightly defective.
No witness testified that he saw the accident.
Otis Blair, 15 years old, who was introduced by plaintiffs, was the witness who saw the deceased last, prior to the accident. He testified in part as follows:
That testimony was not contradicted by any witness.
J. A....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Wade, Receiver of Missouri & North Arkansas Railroad Co.
...evidence. 122 Ark. 445. A verdict can not be based on surmises, conjecture or suspicion. 141 N.W. 231; 42 D. C. App. 146; 106 N.E. 646; 174 S.W. 287; 174 Id. 547; 189 Ill.App. 316; 181 S.W. 938; 185 Id. 896; 235 F. 727; 183 S.W. 1099; 96 A. 967; 159 P. 927; 219 F. 686. Hearsay testimony is ......
-
Weatherford, M. W. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Thomas
...be added: C., R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 111 S. W. 758; Railway Co. v. Watkins, 88 Tex. 20, 29 S. W. 232; St. L. S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v. West et al (No. 8069) 174 S. W. 287, by this court not yet officially The difficulty of determination in such cases is generally not so much one of law ......
-
Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Wisdom
...T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Shoemaker, 98 Tex. 456, 84 S. W. 1049; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Davis, 161 S. W. 932, writ denied; S. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. West, 174 S. W. 287, writ denied; Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. McMurray, 173 S. W. 929, writ denied; Medlin Milling Co. v. Mims, 173 S. W. 968, wri......
-
Railroad Commission v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
...v. Chas. Clark & Co., Tex.Civ. App., 182 S.W. 351, error dis.; Davis v. Etter & Curtis, Tex.Civ.App., 243 S.W. 603; St. Louis, etc., Ry. v. West, Tex.Civ. App., 174 S.W. 287, error ref.; Gayle v. Perryman, 6 Tex.Civ.App. 20, 24 S.W. 850; 17 Tex.Jur. 307; McCormick & Ray, Texas Law of Eviden......