Texas Ry Co v. Volk
Decision Date | 03 January 1894 |
Docket Number | No. 161,161 |
Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. VOLK |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Statement by Mr. Justice GRAY:
This was an action against a railroad corporation incorporated by act of congress, to recover for personal injuries.
The petition alleged that while the plaintiff, a laborer employed in the Fort Worth Iron Works, a corporation owning and carrying on a shop or foundry, was assisting in unloading an iron boiler from a railroad car disconnected from any engine, and standing upon a side track or switch belonging to or used by that corporation, close by its shop or foundry, and connected with the defendant's line of railway, the defendant, by its agents and servants, willfully, and with gross negligence, caused an engine and cars to run against the car upon which the plaintiff was at work, whereby he was knocked down and thrown off the car, severely injured, disabled to work, and put to expense for medicines and physicians' fees, 'all to his damage twenty-five thousand one hundred and twenty-five dollars.'
The petition further alleged that 'said acts of negligence have by the defendant railway company been ratified and adopted, in this: that said company has retained said reckless and negligent servants in its employ after having been notified of their said reckless and negligent acts, and the injury inflicted upon plaintiff thereby, and in failing to in any way prevent, or to take any steps to prevent, the occurrence of such accidents in future,—by reason whereof the plaintiff says he is entitled to the further sum of ten thousand dollars by way of exemplary damages.'
The defendant, by way of demurrer, excepted to the petition, because it did not appear therefrom that the plaintiff was without fault or negligence in the premises; and excepted also to the sufficiency of the allegations claiming exemplary damages; and, by way of answer, denied all the allegations of the petition, and pleaded not guilty; and, for special answer, set up that, if the plaintiff was injured as alleged, 'said injuries were caused by the plaintiff's own contributory negligence and want of care in failing to get off the car after the danger was apparent, but before said car, upon which the plaintiff was at work, had been struck.'
The jury returned a verdict 'for the plaintiff, and assess his actual damages at eight thousand dollars.' Judgment was rendered on the verdict, and the defendant tendered a bill of exceptions, so much of which as related to the points argued in this court was as follows:
First. The court overruled the exception to the sufficiency of the allegations in the petition claiming exemplary damages 'and allowed the plaintiff, over the defendant's objection, to introduce evidence to the effect that the engineer and fireman in charge of said engine had been retained in the defendant's employment, and had never been censured or reprimanded for the accident in question,—to all of which the defendant excepted at the time; but the court, in its charge to the jury, after hearing the argument upon the question of exemplary damages, withdrew from their consideration the claim of exemplary damages.'
Second. The court overruled the exception that the petition did not show that the plaintiff was without fault or negligence. The defendant thereupon, in support of the answer setting up contributory negligence of the plaintiff,
Third. The plaintiff, in proving his case, introduced the deposition of one Bauer, in which he testified that he was one of those unloading the car upon which the plaintiff was at work, and, 'in answer to a question by the plaintiff, and over the defendant's objection that the answer was incompetent, was allowed to testify as follows: 'We didn't know what was coming until she struck the car, for we were busy at work, and not thinking of the engine coming in, knowing that they had no right to make any flying switch in there,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stassi v. United States
...15 Wall. 151, 164, 21 L. Ed. 123; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 93 U. S. 393, 394, 23 L. Ed. 887; Texas & Pacific Railway v. Volk, 151 U. S. 73, 78, 14 S. Ct. 239, 240, 38 L. Ed. 78; Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Company, 233 U. S. 184, 195, 34 S. Ct. 559, 58 L. Ed. 906. In Mutual Life Ins. Co......
-
Santa Fe P. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ford
... ... Com ... Neg., sec. 186; Whart. on Neg., sec. 73; 2 Jaggard on Torts, ... 960; Ray on Neg. Imp. Dut. Pass., 669, 670; Texas and ... Pacific Ry. Co. v. Moore, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 289, 27 S.W ... 962; New York etc. Ry. Co. v. Perriguey, 138 Ind ... 414, 34 N.E. 233, 37 ... negligence. Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Goebel, 119 Ill ... 515, 10 N.E. 369; Texas and Pac. Ry. Co. v. Volk, ... 151 U.S. 73, 14 S.Ct. 239, 38 L.Ed. 78; San Antonio etc ... Ry. Co. v. Jazo, (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S.W. 712. The ... notice or warning should ... ...
-
Konig v. Nevada-California-Oregon Ry.
... ... Lee v. Troy Citizens' ... Gaslight Co., 98 N.Y. 115 ... The ... Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Texas & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Volk, 151 U.S. 73, 14 S.Ct ... 239, 38 L.Ed. 78, speaking through Mr. Justice Gray, laid ... down the rule as follows: ... ...
-
Liberty Bell Gold Min. Co. v. Smuggler-Union Min. Co.
... ... Pollard, 22 Wall. 341, ... 22 L.Ed. 877; Grand Trunk R.R. Co. v. Ives, 144 U.S ... 408, 417, 12 Sup.Ct. 679, 36 L.Ed. 485; Texas & Pacific ... R.R. Co. v. Gentry, 163 U.S. 353, 16 Sup.Ct. 1104, 41 ... L.Ed. 186; St. Louis, etc., R.R. Co. v. Leftwich, ... 117 F. 127, 129, ... must establish it by a preponderance of the evidence ... Texas & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Volk, 151 U.S. 73, 78, ... 14 Sup.Ct. 239, 38 L.Ed. 78; Inland & Seaboard Co. v ... Tolson, 139 U.S. 551, 557, 11 Sup.Ct. 653, 35 L.Ed. 270; ... ...