St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Horne

• Decision Date: 18 June 1910
• Citation: 130 S.W. 1025
• Parties: ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. HORNE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

130 S.W. 1025

ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. HORNE.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

June 18, 1910.

Rehearing Denied October 8, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; T. D. Montrose, Judge.

Action for injuries by Mrs. M. J. Horne against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

E. B. Perkins and Templeton, Craddock, Crosby & Dinsmore, for appellant. Yates & Starnes, for appellee.

BOOKHOUT, J.

Mrs. M. J. Horne, a feme sole, brought this suit against St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas, alleging that on March 4, 1908, she was a passenger on one of defendant's trains, and that when the train stopped at Greenville, which was her destination, she started to alight therefrom, and that while she was on the steps of the car the train was suddenly moved forward and then backward, throwing her against the railing, and injuring her. The defendant pleaded the general issue, contributory negligence, and specially that, if plaintiff's health or physical condition is in any way impaired, the same is due to causes other than injuries sustained in the alleged accident. The case was tried before a jury and a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff for $800, and judgment rendered accordingly. Upon the overruling of its motion for new trial defendant perfected an appeal.

The appellant assigns error as follows: "The court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for new trial, and especially in overruling the fourteenth ground thereof, which reads as follows: `Because the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the evidence, and is excessive in amount, in that the great preponderance of the evidence shows that plaintiff was not really injured in the alleged accident, and the evidence shows conclusively that, if she was injured at all, such injury was slight and inconsiderable, and that whatever physical troubles or ailments she has suffered with since the alleged accident are due to diseases and causes other than injuries received in the alleged accident for which the defendant is not liable.'" The assignment is submitted as a proposition. This proposition is not sustained. While the evidence is conflicting, yet there was evidence fairly showing that plaintiff sustained injuries as alleged in her petition, and in the manner therein alleged; that by reason of said injuries, she was damaged in the amount of the verdict. The evidence does not show that she was guilty of contributory negligence.

It is insisted that the court erred in refusing to read to the jury appellant's special charge No. 2, as follows: "In no event is the plaintiff entitled to recover any damages except such as...