Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Bump

• Decision Date: 26 May 1906
• Parties: TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. BUMP.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

95 S.W. 29

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. BUMP.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

May 26, 1906.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Palo Pinto County; W. J. Oxford, Judge.

Action by J. G. Bump against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. C. Shropshire, for appellant. W. H. Penix, for appellee.

CONNER, C. J.

In this suit appellee recovered in the district court of Palo Pinto County $280 as damages for personal injuries, and the further sum of $420 as damages to two car loads of, or 55, horses. It was alleged that the horses were shipped over appellant's line of railway from Strawn, Tex., to Texarkana, Tex., on October 25, 1902; that one of said cars was defective in particulars mentioned; that when near the city of Marshall, and while running at a rapid rate of speed, by reason of negligence on the part of appellant, a collision or very sudden stoppage occurred, which proximately resulted in great injuries to said horses as particularized, and also caused great and severe injuries, as specified, to the person of appellee, who accompanied said shipment. The prayer was for the total sum of $1,335, with judgment as stated.

While the first assignment seems subject to appellee's objection that it contains three distinct subjects or grounds of error, but a single subject is thereunder presented, and we will consider it. Under this assignment appellant urges that a new trial should have been granted, as was sought, because a preponderance of the evidence shows that appellee was not personally injured, and that hence the verdict was excessive to the extent, at least, of the amount awarded on this account. A mere preponderance of evidence against a verdict will not authorize us to set it aside. The rule is well established that where there is evidence tending to support a verdict, and nothing appears in the record showing that it was the result of passion or prejudice, it will not be set aside. Ft. W. & Denver Ry. Co. v. Bunrock (Tex. Civ. App.) 46 S. W. 70; Ry. Co. v. Casey (Ky.) 71 S. W. 876; Board of Councilmen of City of Frankfort v. Chinn (Ky.) 89 S. W. 188. Appellee testified to the sudden stoppage of the train; that it threw him off his seat backwards and against the caboose door; that it was very dark, and that he could not see what was the trouble; that the train was running rapidly; that he struck on his head and shoulders, and hurt his head, neck, shoulders, back,...