St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Ricketts

• Decision Date: 20 November 1902
• Parties: ST. LOUIS S. W. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. RICKETTS et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 315

70 S.W. 315

ST. LOUIS S. W. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. RICKETTS et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 20, 1902.

Certified questions from court of civil appeals of Fifth supreme judicial district.

Action by R. F. Ricketts and another against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals to the court of civil appeals. Reversed (54 S. W. 1090), and questions certified.

E. B. Perkins, Geo. E. Perkins, and D. Upthegrove, for appellant. Evans & Elder. for appellees.

WILLIAMS, J.

Certified questions from the court of civil appeals for the Fifth district as follows:

"Appellees, R. F. Ricketts and wife, brought this suit against the appellant to recover damages claimed to have resulted to Mrs. Ricketts for having been carried by her station and been exposed to the cold and rain, causing her to be sick, and resulting in her having chronic female troubles, etc. The facts disclose that on the evening of October 29, 1897, appellees and their little girl came from Paris to Greenville, Tex., and stopped at a hotel near the public square. At 2 o'clock on the morning of October 30th they got up and went from the hotel to appellant's depot, and bought tickets to Clinton, the first station west from Greenville, paying therefor. They boarded appellant's train, and the employés of appellant failed to stop the train at Clinton, and carried appellees to Nevada, a station nine miles west of Clinton, where they debarked. The evidence conflicts as to appellant being negligent in failing to stop the train at Clinton. The train on which they were passengers left Greenville at 3 o'clock, and arrived at Nevada about an hour later. The conductor testified that he went into the depot at Nevada, and wrote a note to the conductor on the next train to take them back to Clinton free of charge, which they refused. Appellees deny this. Appellees remained in the depot building until about 6 o'clock, when they went to a hotel near by, and got breakfast. The testimony conflicts as to the condition, and as to there being lights or fire in the building during that time. They then got into an open hack, and went back to Clinton through the country, and spent a part of the day in a blacksmith shop, during a part of which time it was raining. From Clinton they went back to Greenville on the return train. Mrs. Ricketts' monthly period was on at the time. She suffered from cold while in the depot at Nevada, and she testified that it stopped her sickness, which caused a pain in her back and the lower part of her bowels. After returning home, she was sick for three months, and since then she has been suffering with chronic female trouble. The facts raise the issue whether or not her condition was caused solely by her stay at Nevada, or was caused by her riding from Nevada to Clinton in an open hack, and remaining in the blacksmith shop while at Clinton during the same day. Upon this issue the defendant asked the following special charge, which was refused, to wit: `You are instructed that defendant would not be liable for any sickness contracted by plaintiff's wife on account of exposure, other than what she did contract while waiting in the depot at Nevada station. And before the jury can allow plaintiff to recover anything on this account, or for medical bills or medicine, the jury must believe from the evidence that the defendant negligently carried plaintiff and wife beyond Clinton station, and afterwards failed to exercise ordinary care for their protection, and that said negligence and want of care was the proximate cause of plaintiff's sickness (if any she had).' The court, in its main charge, instructed the jury, in effect, that plaintiff could only recover for such injuries to his wife as the proof showed affirmatively that she had sustained as a direct result of the negligence of the defendant, and further that the burden of proof was upon plaintiff. There is no complaint by appellant that the verdict is excessive.

"First Question. Under the circumstances stated, did the court err in refusing to give the special charge requested, or was the court's general charge sufficient to cover said issue? On the hearing of the motion for a new trial, one of the grounds being the misconduct of the foreman, the defendant offered to prove by two of the jurors who tried the case that, after the jury had retired, and while considering of their verdict, the foreman of the jury stated to the other...