St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Watts
Decision Date | 28 January 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 1377.) |
Citation | 173 S.W. 909 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. WATTS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bowie County; H. F. O'Neal, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Nannie Watts and others against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Glass, Estes, King & Burford, of Texarkana, for appellant. Smelser & Vaughan and Mahaffey, Thomas & Hughes, all of Texarkana, and R. M. Hubbard, of New Boston, for appellees.
On the night of July 7, 1912, John C. Watts, the husband of the appellee Mrs. Nannie Watts, and the father of the other appellees, was killed in the yards of the appellant at Texarkana, Tex., under the following circumstances: His daughter desired to go to Palestine, Tex., and he accompanied her to the Union Station at Texarkana to assist her in taking passage on the south-bound Texas & Pacific train due to leave some time after 1 o'clock in the early morning. He boarded this train with his daughter for the purpose of securing for her a berth in a sleeping car, but before he had concluded his arrangements with the Pullman conductor the train began to leave the station. The Pullman conductor testified:
The Texas & Pacific train, in passing out from the Union Depot, moved in a southwesterly direction, and gradually turned still farther toward the south, crossing the main line and one or more switch tracks of the appellant before leaving the railway yards. Shortly after this train had left, a switch engine belonging to the appellant, which had been standing east of this crossing of the railroads, moved west some distance, passing over the Texas & Pacific track. It was then switched onto another one of the appellant's tracks a few feet further south, and started toward the east again. When within a few feet of the Texas & Pacific track the body of a man, afterwards identified as that of John C. Watts, was discovered on the appellant's track about six feet in front of the end of the tender of this switch engine. This switch engine was backing, and across the rear end of the tender was a running board, on which several of the appellant's employés were standing at the time, but it seems that none of them discovered Watts in time to avoid a collision. The engine passed over his body, and he expired a few seconds later. E. M. Holliday, one of those employés, thus describes what occurred:
Another switchman testified that about the time the collision occurred he heard some one in that direction cry out as if in pain. A. L. Scott, a witness for the defendant, testified that at the time this injury occurred it was his business to let trains in and out of the yard at Texarkana to place engines on and take them off, and arrange switches for trains to leave town and come into town on. He thus testified as to what he observed that night:
Dr. E. M. Watts, a son of the deceased, testified as follows:
This suit is by the surviving wife and children of John C. Watts to recover damages occasioned by his death, and this appeal is from a judgment in their favor for the sum of $10,000. The petition charged negligence on the part of the appellant's employés in failing to keep a proper lookout to discover the presence of John C. Watts upon the track, and in failing to exercise proper care to stop the engine after they discovered his presence upon the track and in a place of danger. The latter ground, however, was abandoned, and the issue of negligence based upon the failure to keep a proper lookout to discover the presence of the deceased upon the track was the only one submitted as a basis of recovery.
There was testimony sufficient to justify a finding by the jury that the appellant's roadbed and track at the place where the accident occurred had been commonly used as a footpath, both in the daytime and at night, for a number of years, under circumstances which were reasonably calculated to charge the employés with a knowledge of such use. The court gave to the jury the following as a portion of his main charge:
(1)
The main issue was thus...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frick v. International & G. N. Ry. Co.
...v. Broomhead, 140 S. W. 820; Railway v. Jaramilla, 180 S. W. 1126; Railway v. Hammer, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 354, 78 S. W. 708; Railway v. Watts, 173 S. W. 909; Railway v. Hewitt, 67 Tex. 473, 3 S. W. 708, 60 Am. Rep. 32; Railway v. Huegle, 158 S. W. 197; Railway v. O'Donnell, 58 Tex. 27; Railwa......
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Gibson
...this state. Railway Co. v. Watkins, 29 S. W. 233, 88 Tex. 20; Ry. Co. v. Bolton, 81 S. W. 123, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 87; Railway Co. v. Watts (Tex. Civ. App.) 173 S. W. 909. Among other cases than Aerkfetz v. Humphreys, mentioned above, cited by appellant in support of its contention, is Gilmer......
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Watts
...others against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (173 S. W. 909), and defendant brings error. Judgment of the district court and Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and cause remanded for another E. B. Perki......