Texas Midland R. Co. v. Frey
Decision Date | 20 February 1901 |
Citation | 61 S.W. 442 |
Parties | TEXAS MIDLAND R. CO. v. FREY. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Lamar county; E. S. Chambers, Judge.
Action by Samuel Frey against the Texas Midland Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Edgar Wright and H. D. McDonald, for appellant. Wilkins, Vinson & Batsell and Moore, Park & Birmingham, for appellee.
This is a suit to recover damages arising from personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon the wife of appellee through the negligence of appellant. Upon the verdict of a jury, judgment was rendered in favor of appellee for $2,000. It was alleged in the petition that Sarah Frey, the wife of appellee, got on a passenger train, belonging to appellant, at Terrell, Tex., to go to Ennis, Tex.; that when the train reached Ennis no platform had been provided upon which Mrs. Frey could alight, and she was compelled to alight upon the ground; that there was no box or stool to aid her in reaching the ground, and, although she exercised proper care in alighting, she was severely and permanently injured. These were the only grounds of negligence alleged. The uncontroverted evidence established that there was a gravel and cement platform for the accommodation of passengers at Ennis, built on a level with the tracks, and that the platform was not more than 18 inches from the lower step of the passenger coach. A man was employed at the depot to assist passengers on and off all trains, and he was assisted by the conductor. Mrs. Frey, the only witness who swore to the circumstances connected with her injury, testified as follows: It is evident from all the circumstances that what Mrs. Frey called the "ground" was the gravel and cement platform. No effort was made to show that the step was more than 18 inches from the "ground" or platform where Mrs. Frey alighted, but all the evidence of negligence introduced by appellee is quoted above.
It...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Wiuvar
...not believe in this case that any duty was imposed on the appellant to assist appellee to alight from the train. Texas Midland Ry. v. Frey, 25 Tex. Civ App. 386, 61 S. W. 442; Railway v. Sherrill, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 116, 72 S. W. 429; Young v. Railway, 93 Mo. App. 267; 10 C. J. §§ 1352-1354;......
-
Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co. v. Pressell
...or leaving any of its cars.” See, also, Barney v. Railroad Co., 126 Mo. 392, 28 S. W. 1069, 26 L. R. A. 847;Texas Midland R. R. Co. v. Frey (Tex. Civ. App.) 61 S. W. 442. In this paragraph there are no facts pleaded which show that there was any necessity existing which would require appell......
-
Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Company v. Pressell
... ... Hannibal, etc., R. Co ... (1895), 126 Mo. 372, 28 S.W. 1069, 26 L. R. A. 847; ... Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Frey (1901), 25 Tex ... Civ. App. 386, 61 S.W. 442. In this paragraph there are ... ...
-
Dahl v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
... ... Another ... case in point is the case of the Texas Midland R. Co. v ... Frey, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 386, 61 S.W. 442. In this case ... the plaintiff ... ...