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

• Decision Date: 21 December 1918
• Docket Number: (No. 16-2607.)
• Citation: 207 S.W. 84
• Parties: ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. WOODALL.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

207 S.W. 84

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

(No. 16-2607.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

December 21, 1918.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fifth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by John R. Woodall against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (159 S. W. 1012), and defendant brings error, plaintiff making cross-assignments. Reversed and remanded.

E. B. Perkins, of Dallas, and Daniel Upthegrove, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.

Allen & Allen, of Dallas, for defendant in error.

TAYLOR, J.

The main question presented for determination is: Did the Court of Civil Appeals err in holding that the following paragraph of the court's charge correctly defines the care required by the defendant in error in the transportation of its passengers:

"Fourth. On the claim of plaintiff for damages for personal injuries, you are instructed that railway companies as carriers of passengers are required to exercise the highest degree of care possible for the safety of their passengers, both while they are being carried on its trains and while alighting therefrom, and a failure to exercise such care is negligence. They are not, however, to be regarded as insurers of the safety of their passengers."

The facts to which the foregoing charge is applied are, briefly, that the plaintiff purchased from the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company at Dallas a through ticket over that line and plaintiff in error's line from Dallas to Brownsboro, via Corsicana. Plaintiff went to Corsicana over the H. & T. C. line, and then took passage for Brownsboro on the defendant in error's limited train. Soon after boarding said train, he was advised by the conductor that it did not stop at Brownsboro, and thereupon paid his fare to Chandler, a place beyond Brownsboro, where the train was scheduled to stop. When the train reached Brownsboro, a freight train was standing partly on the main track and partly on a siding, too short to hold the entire train, which made it necessary for the passenger train on which the plaintiff was riding to stop about 200 or 300 yards from the station and "saw by" the freight train. When the stop was made during the night at Brownsboro, the plaintiff, having been told by the conductor that the train was at Brownsboro and that he would let him off, alighted from the train. It being further to the ground than plaintiff thought, he lost his balance after striking the ground and fell in a pile of railroad iron and cross-ties, injuring himself. 159 S. W. 1012.

The Supreme Court held in the case of I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Welch, 86 Tex. 203, 24 S. W. 390, 40 Am. St. Rep. 829, that it is erroneous to charge the...