St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Gresham
Decision Date | 04 November 1911 |
Citation | 140 S.W. 483 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. GRESHAM.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hill County; W. C. Wear, Judge.
Action by Lucile Gresham, by next friend, against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
E. B. Perkins, D. Upthegrove, Scott, Sanford & Ross, and D. C. Woods, for appellant. Frazier & Shurtleff, for appellee.
This was a suit brought in the district court of Hill county by J. R. Bragg, acting as next friend for Lucile Gresham, against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas, appellant herein. The purpose of the suit was to recover damages on account of alleged injuries received by said Lucile Gresham while disembarking from defendant's passenger train at Hillsboro on the 11th day of July, 1910.
Plaintiff alleged in her petition that she boarded the train at Frost, in Navarro county, for Hillsboro, in Hill county; that she remained seated in the car until the train arrived at her destination; that she then, under the direction of the agent, proceeded to the car platform for the purpose of leaving the train; that when she arrived at the platform and started to descend the steps leading therefrom she found them wet and slippery, a large quantity of mud and water having accumulated thereon; and that on account of said condition of the steps she slipped and fell, striking her back against the steps, and sustaining severe and permanent injuries. The amount sued for was $25,000. Negligence was alleged on defendant's part in permitting its car steps to become wet and slippery and muddy, and in failing to have said steps equipped in such manner as to be reasonably safe for passengers in alighting from the train. Several other allegations of negligence were made in the petition, but, as they were not supported by the evidence or given in charge to the jury, their consideration is not necessary to this appeal. The defendant answered by general demurrer, general denial, special exceptions, and the plea of contributory negligence. The cause coming on for trial, a verdict was returned by the jury in plaintiff's favor for the sum of $6,000, upon which, with 6 per cent. interest, judgment was rendered on September 17, 1910. Defendant duly filed its motion for new trial and amended motion, which latter was by the court overruled and notice of appeal given. Appeal bond was duly filed and assignment of errors, and the cause is now presented in this court for review and judgment.
Appellant's first assignment of error reads: "The verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the evidence in this: That the undisputed evidence showed that defendant had used due care to keep said steps free from mud or slippery substance, and the undisputed evidence further showed that defendant had used due care in equipping said steps, so as to be reasonably safe for passengers in alighting from said train, and that said steps were equipped in the same manner as all steps on similar lines of railroad." Appellant requested a charge instructing a verdict in its favor, which was refused. In its motion for new trial, it complained of the verdict as being contrary to the law and evidence.
The court charged the jury that:
(1) "It was the duty of the defendant's agents, servants, and employés to use that high degree of care to keep the steps provided for passengers to alight from its coaches in a reasonably safe condition to so alight as would be exercised by very prudent persons under the same circumstances, and a failure to use such care would be negligence."
(2)
The plaintiff, Lucile Gresham, testified as follows: On cross-examination, she testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Taylor v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
...150, 112 Ill.App. 28; Speck v. Railroad, 133 A.D. 802; Railroad v. Smith, 59 Ill.App. 242; Rosen v. Boston, 187 Mass. 245; Railway Co. v. Gresham, 140 S.W. 483; Sutton v. Railway, 230 Pa. 523; Railroad Cockerell, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 1037; Neslie v. Railroad, 113 Pa. St. 300; McGuire v. Transit C......
-
Craig v. United Railways Company of St. Louis
... ... Railroad, 182 Mass. 378; Walton ... v. Ins. Co., 162 Mo.App. 316; Railroad v ... Gresham, 140 S.W. 483; Rosen v. Boston, 187 ... Mass. 245; Parker-Washington Co. v. Dennison, 155 ... ...
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Gresham
...by her next friend, against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed by the Court of Appeals (140 S. W. 483), and defendant brings error. E. B. Perkins and D. Upthegrove, both of Dallas, and Scott & Ross, of Waco, for plaintiff in error. Frazier &......
-
Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Henderson
...from one of appellant's trains. The main and controlling question of law involved in this case was involved and decided in Railway Co. v. Gresham, 140 S. W. 483, decided by the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals. In that case the plaintiff charged the defendant with negligence in permitting the ......