Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Neill

• Decision Date: 06 March 1895
• Parties: TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. NEILL.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

30 S.W. 369

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. NEILL.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 6, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Taylor county; T. H. Connor, Judge.

Action by T. W. Neill against Texas & Pacific Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries to plaintiff's wife. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

B. G. Bidwell, for appellant. Legett & Hardwicke, for appellee.

Conclusions.

HEAD, J.

Trent, which consists of a post office and one store, is a flag station on appellant's road in Taylor county. The company at one time laid off a town on the north side of its track, and established a crossing for the accommodation of those living on the south side, at which was placed the usual sign, consisting of two boards, crossed, each marked "Railroad Crossing." On June 1, 1893, this crossing had thus been established and maintained by appellant for eight or nine years, but the county authorities had never adopted or established it as a public road. There was no other public crossing on appellant's track short of 2½ to 3 miles in either direction, and all persons having business at this station used the one established and maintained as aforesaid. At the foot of the embankment on the south side of the track appellant had inserted an 18-inch box, to serve as a drain, but on May 10, 1893, it was washed out, and left a ditch with abrupt sides across the road where it had been. The public, however, continued to use the crossing, and on June 1, 1893, appellee's wife, in attempting to pass from Trent to a friend's, south, was by the sudden jolt caused by this ditch thrown from her seat, her horse ran away, and she received serious personal injuries. No assignment is presented in the briefs calling in question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. It must now be regarded as settled in this state that if a railroad company invites the public upon its track at a particular place, by establishing and maintaining a crossing there, it must use ordinary care to keep it in suitable condition for such use, whether the municipal authorities adopt it as a public road in compliance with the statute or not. Railway Co. v. Bridges, 74 Tex. 520, 12 S. W. 210; Railway Co. v. Montgomery, 85 Tex. 64, 19 S. W. 1015. This is especially true where the crossing is put in by the company to foster a station established by it. The court, therefore, committed no error in announcing this principle in the charge complained of in appellant...