Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Bingle
| Citation | 42 S.W. 971 |
| Parties | TEXAS & N. O. R. CO. v. BINGLE. |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1897 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Action by W. L. Bingle against the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company to recover for personal injuries. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the court of civil appeals. 41 S. W. 90. On motion for a rehearing of defendant's application for a writ of error. Overruled.
Baker, Botts, Baker & Lovett and S. R. Perryman, for applicant.
The main question presented in the application in this case is one upon which there is a great conflict of authority, and which, it would seem, has never been quite definitely settled in this court. It has been before the court on more than one occasion, and its difficulty has been recognized. Therefore, before we passed upon the application in this case, we examined the question with great care, and reviewed the authorities, with the result that we were of opinion that the court of civil appeals did not err in its disposition of the case. However, counsel for the applicant have filed a motion for a rehearing, and have supported it by an argument upon the principal question, which manifests great zeal and ability. We have therefore reconsidered the point, but have found no good reason to change our opinion. It is not our practice, in passing upon applications for writs of error, to express our views in writing, but, considering the importance of the question before us, and the unsettled state of the authorities upon it, we have deemed it best to state briefly our conclusions.
The servant, by entering the employment of the master, assumes all the ordinary risks incident to the business, but not those arising from the master's neglect. It is the duty of the master to exercise ordinary care to furnish him a safe place in which to work, safe machinery and appliances, to select careful and skillful co-workers, and, in case of a dangerous and complicated business, to make such reasonable rules for its conduct as may be proper to protect the servants employed therein. The servant has the right to rely upon the assumption that the master has done his duty; but if he becomes apprised that he has not, and learns that the machinery is defective, the place unnecessarily dangerous, or that proper rules are not enforced, he assumes the risk incident to that condition of affairs, unless he informs the master, and the latter promises to correct the evil. In this latter event, so long as he has reasonable grounds to expect, and does expect, that the master will fulfill his promise, he does not, by continuing in the employment, assume the additional risk arising from the master's neglect. If he then be injured by reason of that neglect, he may recover,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crews v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
...under the conditions alleged and indicated by the evidence, we call attention to the following authorities: In Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Bingle, 91 Tex. 287, 288, 42 S.W. 971, Chief Justice Gaines said: "The servant, by entering the employment of the master, assumes all the ordinary risks inc......
-
San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Klaus
...79 S.W. 58 ... SAN ANTONIO & A. P. RY. CO ... Court of Civil Appeals of Texas ... February 10, 1904 ... Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; J. L. Camp, Judge ... Action by Fred L. Klaus ... Ry. v. Wade (Va.) 45 S. E. 915; Ry v. Hannig, 91 Tex. 347, 43 S. W. 508; Railway v. Bingle, 91 ... Tex. 287, 42 S. W. 971; Railway v. O'Fiel, 78 Tex. 486, 15 S. W. 33; Railway v. Engelhorn (Tex. Civ. App.) 62 S. W. 561; Railway v. Winton ... ...
-
Wichita Falls & S. R. Co. v. Lindley
...must necessarily have acquired the knowledge. Bonnet v. Galveston, etc., Railway Co., 89 Tex. 72, 33 S.W. 334; [Texas & N. O.] Railroad Co. v. Bingle , 42 S.W. 971." See also Hough v. Texas, etc., Railway Co., U.S., supra; Wabash Railroad Co. v. McDaniels, 107 U.S. 454, 2 S.Ct. 932, 27 L.Ed......
-
Hines v. Wicks
...City Ry. Co., 76 Tex. 502, 13 S. W. 540; Railway Co. v. Brentford, 79 Tex. 619, 15 S. W. 561, 23 Am. St. Rep. 377; Railway Co. v. Bingle, 91 Tex. 287, 42 S. W. 971; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Horton, 239 U. S. 595, 36 Sup. Ct. 180, 60 L. Ed. 458; Id., 233 U. S. 492, 34 Sup. Ct. 635, 58 L.......