Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Skinner
| Decision Date | 16 November 1893 |
| Citation | 23 S.W. 1001 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | TEXAS & N. O. RY. CO. v. SKINNER. |
Appeal from district court, Jefferson county; W. H. Ford, Judge.
Action by Sarah E. Skinner for herself and as next friend of her minor son against the Texas & New Orleans Railway Company to recover for personal injuries to him. A judgment was rendered for plaintiff as to the cause of action in her own right, and for defendant as to the cause of action in behalf of her son. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
O'Brien & O'Brien, for appellant. Greer & Greer, for appellee.
The appellee sued the appellant in her own right and as next friend of her minor son, Johnny Williamson, to recover damages for personal injuries received by the latter while helping to switch appellant's cars on its track at Beaumont. The son, who was about 17 years of age at the time of the injury, was, with the consent of his mother, in the employment of the defendant as call boy in its yard office, and his duties were to deliver messages from the operator's office to the freight office, roundhouse, and yard master, to call train crews, and to clear up the office. He sometimes had to get on a train to deliver messages, but had nothing else to do with them, or duties about them. He was hurt under the following circumstances: On August __, 1891, he was told by the operator to go down town for some ink and the mail. There was a switch engine and some freight cars standing ready to go down town, and the boy got on one of the cars. One Hodges was foreman of the yard, and in charge of the switch crew. When the train got near the freight depot, in order to switch off a car by the method known as "kicking," the foreman told Williamson to pull the coupling pin, and when the latter did so the foreman signaled the engineer, and in taking up the slack Williamson was thrown off the car and hurt. There was no testimony to show that Hodges had the authority to employ servants. Williamson testified that he had been cautioned about riding on the trains, but was not told not to do so; that he was told he could do so by the station master and operator; but both of them testified that he was instructed not to do so. Hodges, the foreman, did not forbid him from getting on the train, and did not tell him to get off. His mother did not consent to his acting as a switchman. Upon the trial the court practically charged the jury to find for the plaintiff for damages in her own right if the boy went upon the train without the authority of his mother, and was injured in the manner stated; and the jury was further instructed to return a verdict in favor of the defendant upon the claim for damages in behalf of the son. We do not deem it necessary to take up ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith
... ... Railroad ... Co., 82 S.W. 567; Prentiss v. Furniture Co., 63 ... Mich. 482; Leistritz v. Zylonite Co., 28 N.E. 294; ... Railway Co. v. Skinner, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 661, 23 ... S.W. 1001; Railroad Co. v. Dial, 58 Ark. 323; ... Railroad Co. v. Miller, 51 Tex. 274; Youll v ... Railroad Co., 66 ... ...
-
Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith, 13,450
... ... Railroad ... Co., 82 S.W. 567; Prentiss v. Furniture Co., 63 ... Mich. 482; Leistritz v. Zylonite Co., 28 N.E. 294; ... Railway Co. v. Skinner, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 661, 23 ... S.W. 1001; Railroad Co. v. Dial, 58 Ark. 323; ... Railroad Co. v. Miller, 51 Tex. 274; Youll v ... Railroad Co., 66 ... ...
-
Luckel v. Barnsdall Oil Co., 4460.
...v. Uvalde Rock & Asphalt Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 296 S. W. 345; Hunt v. Garrett (Tex. Civ. App.) 275 S. W. 96; Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Skinner, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 661, 23 S. W. 1001; Hoover v. Kearbey, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 71, 60 S. W. 782, and Munoz v. Brassel (Tex. Civ. App.) 108 S. W. Appellant......
-
Hunt v. Garrett
...appeal and which do not affect the interest of the appellants in the judgment will not be considered." Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Skinner, reported in 4 Tex. Civ. App. 661, 23 S. W. 1001, was a case in which a mother sued the railway company for damages in her own right and as next friend of ......