Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Endsley
| Decision Date | 08 June 1910 |
| Citation | 129 S.W. 342 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. ENDSLEY. |
Action by W. F. Endsley against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (119 S. W. 1150), and defendant brings error. Reversed and rendered.
Glass, Estes, King & Burford and W. L. Hall, for plaintiff in error. Hart, Mahaffey & Thomas, for defendant in error.
The Texas & Pacific Railway Company owned and operated a track in the city of Texarkana, which crossed the track of the Cotton Belt Railroad at a certain point in the city. The Texas & Pacific track runs on a curve for some distance before and after crossing the Cotton Belt Railroad. By the side of and near to the track of the Texas & Pacific Railroad was a beaten plain path made by pedestrians who had walked there for considerable time, in fact without any interference or molestation on the part of the railroad, and it is not denied by the plaintiff in error that Endsley was a licensee upon the said pathway at the time of his injury. Endsley was a mail carrier and delivered the mail on foot in that part of the city. On this occasion he had been out delivering mail to the office of the Cotton Belt Railroad and was returning to the city. He looked back and saw a train of cars approaching him from the rear and stepped three or four feet from the track so as to be out of the way of the cars as they were passing. He stopped, and was looking at the car wheels as they run over the frog on the track, when something struck him on the back part of his head and knocked him down, inflicting a wound of some length on his head. He testified that when he got up he saw on a car, which had passed him and was some four or five car lengths away, something swinging out from the car; he did not know what it was, but it looked like the door of the car. The train was moving about six or eight miles per hour. Another witness who saw the accident testified that he saw Endsley when he was knocked down, and that the cars passed near to him on the track, but he did not see anything swinging out from the cars. It was proved by this witness that, if the door of a box car was loose at the bottom and fastened at the top, it would project at the bottom seven or eight inches, and on a curve would be inclined to project further than that. There was no other evidence tending to prove that there was a loose door upon any car in that train, nor was there any other proof which tended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
...59 S.W.2d 619; Vandenburgh v. C. & N.W. 174 Ill.App. 225; M.-K.-T. Ry. v. Sowards, 25 P.2d 641; Preslar v. M. & O., 185 S.W. 67; T. & P. v. Endsley, 129 S.W. 342; T. & v. Billingsley, 94 S.W.2d 268; C. & E. I. v. Reilly, 72 N.E. 454. C. O. Inman for respondent. (1) The demurrer to the evide......
-
Gamer Co. v. Gammage
...33 S. W. 718; H. & T. C. v. Barrager, 14 S. W. 242; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Kizziah, 86 Tex. 81, 23 S. W. 581; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Endsley, 103 Tex. 434, 129 S. W. 343—analogous on this We think the negligence, in this case, of the defendant, when you take all the testimony, at the close......
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Lawrence
...v. Riordan (Tex.Civ.App.) 146 S.W. 711; St. Louis, S. F. & T. R. Co. v. Cason, 59 Tex.Civ.App. 323, 129 S.W. 394; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Endsley, 103 Tex. 434, 129 S.W. 342; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Kizziah, 86 Tex. 81, 23 S.W. 578, 581; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Barrager (Tex.Sup.) 14 S.W......
-
Johnson v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co.
...us the authorities upon which our conclusions are based control the disposition of the appeal. In addition we cite Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Endsley, 103 Tex. 434, 129 S.W. 342; St. Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v. Cason, 59 Tex.Civ.App. 323, 129 S.W. 394; Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Smith, Tex.Civ.Ap......