Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Rose

Decision Date19 December 1914
Docket Number(No. 7224.)
Citation172 S.W. 756
PartiesTEXAS CENT. R. CO. v. ROSE.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Hill County; Horton B. Porter, Judge.

Action by Charlie Rose against the Texas Central Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

See, also, 161 S. W. 387.

Chas. C. Huff and A. H. McKnight, both of Dallas, and Spell & Sanford, of Waco, for appellant. Walter Collins and Shurtleff & Cummings, all of Hillsboro, for appellee.

RAINEY, C. J.

Appellee sued appellant to recover damages for the loss of a leg caused by the negligence of the appellant.

"Appellee alleged that he went to Waco, where by the use of intoxicating liquors he became so intoxicated that he was `mentally and physically incapable of protecting himself from danger or of appreciating danger or of knowing and understanding the nature and consequence of his acts'; that while in this condition he boarded one of appellant's passenger trains for Aquilla, Tex., having a ticket from Waco to that point; that he was ejected from the train at Tokio, a station between Waco and Aquilla, being at the time of his ejection in the aforesaid intoxicated condition; that the employés who ejected him knew of his condition at the time; that he was ejected at an improper place; that later he was run over by one of appellant's trains, and his leg was so badly mashed and mangled that it had to be amputated between the ankle and the knee; that it was negligence on the part of appellant to require him to leave the train at such place in his then condition, the employés knowing the condition; and that as a direct and proximate result of such negligence his injury was sustained. Appellant denied the principal allegations, and specially averred that, while appellee was intoxicated, his intoxication did not go to the extent claimed, and that he was physically and mentally capable of taking care of himself. It also averred that he was ejected from the train because he presented no ticket to the conductor and said he had no money with which to pay fare, and therefore the ejectment was proper. In addition to this, it specially alleged that Tokio was a regular station on its line, that it was a proper place at which to discharge appellee, and that the injuries sustained were not the proximate result of any negligence on its part."

A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee for $15,000, from which appellant prosecutes this appeal.

Appellant complains of the court for refusing to instruct the jury to return a verdict for it. The contention is that:

"Appellee having advised its conductor when requesting his fare that he had no ticket and no money, appellant had the right to eject him from the train, although he was intoxicated."

The evidence shows that when the conductor approached appellee and requested his fare the appellee replied that he had no ticket and no money. If the case rested alone on this evidence, appellee was lawfully ejected, and the peremptory charge should have been given, as appellee had no right to recover. But this is not all of the evidence which presents another phase of the case. The appellee alleged that he was in an intoxicated condition, which was known to the employés of appellant, and that he was ejected at an improper place. Appellee, being at Waco at 10 o'clock at night, bought a ticket over appellant's line for the station of Aquilla; he took passage on appellant's passenger train leaving Waco at 10 o'clock at night for Aquilla. He was intoxicated, some of the witnesses pronounced him drunk. Appellee says he was drunk and remembered nothing about the accident. The conductor testified:

"I was conductor on the train running from Waco to Whitney on September 14, 1912. The train on which I was conductor left Waco at 10 p. m. September 14, 1912. I was working my train, and on stepping out of the door onto the platform, at the rear of the chair car, the porter on the Pullman car pointed to a young man sitting on the platform of the chair car with his feet resting on the steps of the chair car. His head was turned westward, which was toward the steps of the car. With reference as to whether I saw Charlie Rose before he boarded my train, I will state that I did not see him that I remember of. I did not recognize the young man on the steps as any one whom I had seen before. The Pullman porter first called my attention to him sitting on the platform of the chair car. I got him by the arm and said: `Young man, get up; let's see what you have got.' He got up very readily. I asked him if he had a ticket, and he felt in his pockets and said: `No; I ain't got no ticket.' I asked him then, if he had any money, and then he felt in his pockets and replied; `No; I ain't got nothing.' I asked him where he wanted to go, and he replied, `I want to go to Waco.' I told him that we had just left Waco, and he remarked that he wanted to go to Waco. I told the Pullman porter, Shorty, to watch him until I got through working the train. I worked on through the train, and when I returned the young man had again sat down on the rear platform of the chair car. I asked him for his ticket, and he went through his pockets and said, `I got nothing.' I asked him if he had any money. He again felt in his pocket, and said, `I ain't got nothing.' I then said, `I will have to let you off at Tokio,' and he said, `All right.' I did not see him when he was hurt. I knew nothing about him having gotten hurt. I did not have any conversation with him, other than that, when I asked him for his ticket, and he said, `I ain't got no ticket,' and when I asked him if he had any money, and he replied, `I ain't got nothing,' and then I said, `I will have to let you off at Tokio,' and he said, `All right.' That is the only conversation that I had with him. With reference to what I saw him do from the first time that I saw him on September 14, 1912, until the last time that I...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Houston E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. Snow
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 15, 1918
    ...W. 1116; Railway Co. v. Dodd, 167 S. W. 238; Railway Co. v. Love, 169 S. W. 922; Railway Co. v. Becker & Sale, 171 S. W. 1024; Railway Co. v. Rose, 172 S. W. 756; Railway Co. v. Miller, 191 S. W. We have carefully read the above authorities, as cited by each side, and have concluded, after ......
  • Estate of Lee
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 1978
    ...because a passenger causes a disturbance, nevertheless, he owes a duty to eject him at a safe place. Texas Central Railroad Co. v. Rose, 172 S.W. 756 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1915, writ ref'd); Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Green,141 S.W. 341 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1911, writ ref'd). Thus, if a driv......
  • Hunt v. Dixie Motor Coach Corporation
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 29, 1945
    ...The facts here do not involve an ejectment of a passenger at a dangerous isolated or unsafe place as is involved in Texas Central R. Co. v. Rose, Tex.Civ. App., 172 S.W. 756, cited by appellant. Under the facts and circumstances so alleged it is not thought it was the legal duty of defendan......
  • Garrett v. Waits Bus Lines
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 2, 1950
    ...the facts here to not involve an ejectment of a passenger at a dangerous, isolated or unsafe place as is involved in Texas Central R. Co. v. Rose, Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W. 756. That case is cited by appellants here, as was done in the Hunt case, in support of their contention. The able and di......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT