Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Hughes
Decision Date | 25 January 1917 |
Docket Number | (No. 1708.) |
Citation | 192 S.W. 1091 |
Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. HUGHES et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Cass County; H. F. O'Neal, Judge.
Action by Beulah Hughes and others against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
It sufficiently appeared from the testimony that on the morning of December 3, 1914, deceased and his brother, John Hughes, were passengers on one of appellant's trains from Atlanta to Texarkana; that they sat together on a seat in the car, deceased being next to a window thereof; that when the train reached a point between Alamo Station and Sulphur river, and while it was moving rapidly, it collided with the limbs of a tree which had fallen toward appellant's track; that one of the limbs, after breaking the glass of the window by which deceased was sitting, struck him back of his ear on the left side of his head; that as a result of injury inflicted by the blow he died in October, 1915; and that by his death appellees were damaged in the sum found by the jury. John Hughes' account of the accident, testifying as a witness, was as follows:
Appellant's track ran about north and south at the point where the accident occurred. The tree (a pine) before it fell stood 61 feet from the track on land west of and adjacent to appellant's right of way. Extending from the ground about 4 feet up and along its north side, and visible from appellant's track, was what witnesses designated as a "cat-face," which, they explained, indicated decay, caused by a burn or something else. The cat-face was about 12 inches wide. There was no evidence that a wind was blowing at the time the tree fell, or that it fell because of any unusual condition then prevailing.
The charge to the jury required the jury to find for appellant unless they believed it was guilty of negligence in failing to discover the dangerous situation and condition of the tree and remove it prior to the time it fell. The jury found, on evidence which, we think, authorized them to do so, that appellant was guilty of negligence in the particulars stated.
Glass, Estes, King & Burford, of Texarkana, and Figures & Stewart, of Atlanta, for appellant. O'Neal & Allday and Hugh Carney, all of Atlanta, for appellees.
WILLSON, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).
The court did not err in overruling appellant's petition to remove the cause from the state to a federal court on the ground that it was incorporated under an act of Congress. T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hanson, 189 S. W. 289.
In their original petition appellees alleged, as is shown in the statement above, that the tree fell "just prior to the time the passenger coach on which said George E. Hughes was riding had reached the point opposite same," and that deceased was struck by limbs of the tree on the back of his head, "causing a severe shock" and fracturing his skull, from the effects of which he died. The allegation as to the time when the tree fell was not carried into the amended petition, on which the trial was had filed on the day before the trial commenced, but it was alleged therein that the collision "was occasioned by said tree falling on or across the track or on the train"; and, as a further consequence to the deceased of the injury caused by his being struck on the head by limbs of the tree, it was alleged that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Cook
...as done." That the submission of the question was in no event attended with that probable injury necessary for reversal, see Railway Co. v. Hughes, 192 S. W. 1091; Railway Co. v. McMichael, 191 S. W. The tenth and eleventh assignments of error complain that the court below erred in allowing......
-
El Paso Electric Co. v. Barker
...212 S.W. 656; O'Connor v. Andrews, 81 Tex. 28, 16 S.W. 628; O'Connor v. Curtis, Tex.Sup., 18 S.W. 953; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Hughes, Tex.Civ.App., 192 S.W. 1091, writ Conformity to conduct or usual methods or customs merely amounts to a circumstance to be considered together with other circ......
-
Whittington v. Cameron Compress Co.
...Ry. Co., 50 Tex. Civ. App. 420, 110 S. W. 978; St. Louis & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Neef (Tex. Civ. App.) 138 S. W. 1168; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hughes (Tex. Civ. App.) 192 S. W. 1091; Texas Power & Light Co. v. Bird (Tex. Civ. App.) 165 S. W. 8. It was not sufficient to rely on its compliance with cus......
-
Carmichael v. Harrison
...125 Tex. 601, 83 S.W. 2d 955; General Life Insurance Company v. Potter, Tex.Civ.App., 124 S.W.2d 409; Texas & Pacific Railroad Company v. Hughes, Tex.Civ.App., 192 S.W. 1091, writ refused; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company v. Gilcrease, Tex.Civ.App., 187 S.W. 714, writ refused; 22 C.......