Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Sherer
Decision Date | 15 January 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 8264.) |
Citation | 183 S.W. 404 |
Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. SHERER.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; R. B. Young, Judge.
Action by F. G. Sherer against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Thompson & Barwise, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. Alexander, Baldwin & Ridgway and A. J. Power, all of Ft. Worth, for appellee.
F. G. Sherer, an employé of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, and while engaged as a switchman in its yards in the city of Ft. Worth, ascended to the top of one of a string of freight cars, which were in motion at the time, for the purpose of setting the brakes in order to control the movement of the cars, which were then upon a switch track. After setting the brakes, he caught hold of the handhold or grabiron at the top of the ladder, which extended down by the side of the car near one end, for the purpose of descending to the ground. According to his testimony, the handhold gave way and caused him to fall. For alleged injuries resulting from the fall he instituted this suit against the company to recover damages in the sum of $30,000, and from a judgment in his favor for the sum of $11,250, the defendant has appealed.
The petition contained the following allegations:
Following those there were other allegations, in substance, that his injuries were caused by reason of said defective handhold.
In its answer the defendant, after specially denying the allegation that the handhold was insecure and defective, further alleged that it had no knowledge or information relative to the truth or falsity of the allegations that the cars which were being handled by the defendant at the time and place plaintiff claims to have been injured had come in from a point beyond the state of Texas, and were destined to points in other states, or that any of them contained articles of merchandise shipped from, or having their destination beyond, the borders of the state of Texas, and hence was unable either to affirm or deny those allegations.
The defendant presented to the trial court a petition for removal of the cause to the federal court, upon the ground that it appeared upon the face of the petition that plaintiff was at the time of his injury engaged in the performance of duties pertaining to interstate commerce, and hence jurisdiction thereof was given to the federal court. As a further ground for removal it was alleged that defendant was incorporated under and by virtue of acts of Congress, and for that additional reason the suit is one arising under the laws of the United States. By an assignment of error appellant challenges the correctness of the order overruling that petition.
Section 8618, vol. 4, United States Compiled Statutes 1913, reads:
The statute last mentioned was one of the sections of an act of Congress passed April 22, 1908, and section 8662 of the statutes, which is another section of the same act, reads:
The petition and bond for removal were filed in the trial court February 3, 1914, and the order overruling the petition bears the same date, while the judgment from which this appeal is prosecuted bears date January 2, 1915.
Section 5 and 6 of an act of Congress enacted January 28, 1915, read:
Act Jan. 28, 1915, c. 22, 38 Stat. 804.
Numerous decisions might be cited to the effect that, as the Texas & Pacific Railway Company was incorporated by act of Congress, suits against it for damages in the sum sought in the present suit were removable from the state courts to the federal court, on the ground that it involved a question of law arising under the federal statute. But, as the employers' liability statute quoted above expressly provides that suits arising thereunder shall not be so removed, and as the present suit was brought under that act, that statute must govern to the exclusion of those decisions, rendered before its enactment. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of K. C. S. Ry. Co. v. Leslie, 238 U. S. 599, 35 Sup. Ct. 844, rendered June 21, 1915, reported in the advance sheets, and which appears in 59 L. Ed. at page 1478, is conclusive of that question in favor of appellee.
Several assignments of error are presented to the admission of testimony of nonexpert witnesses who gave their opinions relative to the physical condition of the plaintiff. One of those witnesses was Chas. A. Hall, who testified by deposition as follows:
Hall did not qualify as an expert witness, and defendant objected to the question and answer upon the ground that the answer stated an opinion and conclusion of the witness, was argumentative, irrelevant, and prejudicial to the appellant.
Another witness was J. F. Bowyer, likewise a nonexpert, who testified to observation he made of plaintiff's movements on several occasions, and to whom was propounded the following interrogatory:
"State in your own way his appearance and physical condition as it appeared to you when you saw him at different times."
To that interrogatory he answered:
"He appears to me as a man that is absolutely helpless as far as his lower extremities are concerned."
Witnesses H. B. Cornell, Boatwright, and Thomas McMillan, all of whom were also nonexperts, testified to opinions substantially to the same effect as those of the witnesses first named.
Appellant has cited the case of Roth v. Travelers' Insurance Co., 102 Tex. 248, 115 S. W. 31, 132 Am. St. Rep. 871, 20 Ann. Cas. 97, and other authorities in support of its contention that the admission of the opinions of those witnesses was erroneous. We find in the record, however, that testimony of all those witnesses practically to the same effect was admitted in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Poindexter v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
...v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 248 S.W. 949; Brimer v. Davis, 245 S.W. 404; Evans v. U.S. Railroad Administration, 182 N.Y.S. 310; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Sherer, 183 S.W. 404; Stone v. Y. Central Co., 207 N.Y.S. 353. (2) Evidence showing that two empty box cars composing part of the train of cars......
-
Poindexter v. C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
...Pac. Ry. Co., 248 S.W. 949; Brimer v. Davis, 245 S.W. 404; Evans v. U.S. Railroad Administration, 182 N.Y. Supp. 310; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Sherer, 183 S.W. 404; Stone v. N.Y. Central Co., 207 N.Y. Supp. 353. (2) Evidence showing that two empty box cars composing part of the train of c......
-
Payne v. Bearden
... ... 49, 152 P. 703; Hester v. Railroad, 254 F. 787, 166 ... C.C.A. 233; Wagner v. C., R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 277 ... Ill. 114, 115 N.E. 201; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Sherer ... (Tex. Civ. App.) 183 S.W. 404; Daley v. Boston & ... M.R.R. Co. (Sup.) 166 N.Y.Supp. 840; Trowbridge v ... ...
-
McAdoo v. Campbell
...6713; Railway Co. v. Enderle, 170 S. W. 276; Railway Co. v. Plemmons, 171 S. W. 259; Railway Co. v. Roemer, 173 S. W. 229; Railway Co. v. Sherer, 183 S. W. 404; Railway Co. v. Martin, 161 S. W. 405; Railway Co. v. Kurtz, 147 S. W. Amendment of 1910 to Federal Safety Appliance Act of 1893, a......