Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Elliott
| Decision Date | 03 April 1901 |
| Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. ELLIOTT. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Bowie county; J. M. Talbot, Judge.
Action for injuries by C. D. Elliott against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
W. T. Armistead, for appellant. F. M. Ball and Rollin W. Rodgers, for appellee.
This is a personal injury suit against the railway company, and from a verdict and judgment for $1,000 in favor of the plaintiff the defendant has appealed. The evidence justifying, in support of the verdict we find that the defendant was guilty of negligence in the manner charged in the plaintiff's petition. The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, and by reason of the defendant's negligence he sustained personal injuries as charged, for which $1,000, the amount awarded him by the verdict, is not unreasonable compensation. The plaintiff's testimony shows that he in good faith boarded a regular passenger train on appellant's road at Jefferson; that he paid to the conductor the fare demanded by the latter from Jefferson to Sulphur Station, a regular station upon appellant's road, but at which the train in question was not in the habit of stopping, and the rules of the railway company forbade its stopping at that station. However, these rules were unknown to the plaintiff, and the conductor agreed to stop the train at or near that station for the plaintiff and two other passengers similarly situated to get off. According to the testimony submitted by the plaintiff, when the train reached a bridge near Sulphur Station, it slowed up to a speed of about four miles an hour. The plaintiff and the other two passengers referred to went out on the rear platform, followed by the conductor. The other two passengers alighted with safety from one side of the platform. The plaintiff was upon the other side, standing upon the lower step; and, according to his testimony, the conductor told him repeatedly to get off. At first he declined to do so, because there were some scantlings piled on the ground, but he finally attempted to get off, and about the time he did so the train gave a sudden jerk and threw him to the ground, by which fall he sustained the injuries complained of. The burden of appellant's contention is that, under the circumstances stated, the conductor had no authority to make a contract for the train to stop at Sulphur Station, or where it did,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moorman v. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
...v. Moore, 6 Am. Neg. Rep. (Ga.) 451; Devine v. Railroad, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. (Iowa) 41; Appleby v. Railroad, 9 Am. Neg. Rep. 582; Railway v. Elliott, 61 S.W. 726; 3 Thompson Negligence, secs. 3002-3032. (2) The above cited cases are sufficient to show the general doctrine in cases like the case......
-
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Price
...would remain there, and to hold the train standing there in accordance with the answer of the time so designated. Railway v. Elliott, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 106, 61 S. W. 726. The appellee having made known to the conductor his desire to alight and get a lunch during the time the train stopped, ......
-
Trinity Valley & N. Ry. Co. v. Green
...Co. v. Woods, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 613, 40 S. W. 846; Railway Co. v. Rhoades, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 459, 51 S. W. 517; Railway Co. v. Elliott, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 106, 61 S. W. 726; Railway Co. v. Shelton, 69 S. W. 653, cited by appellee. The issue of contributory negligence was properly submitted t......
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Woodall
...on the train or that the appellant was relieved from the duty of furnishing a safe place for him to alight. Railway Co. v. Elliott, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 106, 61 S. W. 726. We think the court correctly charged the jury and did not err in refusing the charges The judgment is affirmed. ...