Tisdale v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 02 March 1921 |
Docket Number | (No. 206-3295.) |
Citation | 228 S.W. 133 |
Parties | TISDALE et al. v. PANHANDLE & S. F. RY. CO. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Mrs. Martha A. Tisdale and another, on behalf of themselves and others, against the Panhandle & Sante Fé Railway. Company. Judgment for plaintiffs was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals (199 S. W. 347), and the plaintiffs bring error. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Kimbrough, Underwood & Jackson, of Amarillo, and Chas. C. Cook, of Pampa, for plaintiffs in error.
Terry, Cavin & Mills, of Galveston, and Hoover & Dial and H. E. Hoover, all of Canadian, for defendant in error.
This is an action in damages, instituted in the district court of Gray county, Tex., by Martha A. Tisdale and May Bell Tisdale, for themselves and others, against the Panhandle & Santa Fé Railway Company, for the alleged negligent killing of C. R. Tisdale by said railway company on a public crossing near the depot in the town of Pampa on the 15th day of June, 1915. Plaintiffs alleged three grounds of negligence on the part of said railway company in the killing of the said C. R. Tisdale as follows: (1) Failure to keep a watchman at the crossing; (2) pushing the train over the crossing without having any one stationed on the east (rear) end of the caboose while said train was being backed over the crossing; (3) pushing the train rapidly and hurriedly from a point a short distance from said crossing over the same, without blowing the whistle or ringing the bell.
Defendant answered by general and special exceptions, general denial, and pleas of contributory negligence and assumed risk.
A trial was had before a jury, which, in response to a general charge of the court, returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Martha A. Tisdale for $5,000 and May Bell Tisdale for $1,500. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Defendant in error perfected its appeal from said judgment, and presented various assignments of error in the Court of Civil Appeals. Said court overruled all of the assignments of error, except those which attacked the action of the trial court in submitting to the jury the issue of negligence on the part of defendant in failing to have a flagman or watchman at the public crossing where this accident occurred. The defendant in error contended that, as a matter of law, there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the court in submitting this issue to the jury, and this contention became the basis of two assignments of error, which the Court of Civil Appeals sustained, and reversed the judgment of the trial court, and remanded the cause. See 199 S. W. 347.
The sole question for determination in this connection by this court is whether or not the trial court erred in submitting the aforesaid issue to the jury. There was no objection to the form of the charge used by the trial court in doing so. It was in the usual form, the court asking the jury to determine whether or not an ordinarily prudent person, under the same or similar circumstances, would have provided a flagman at said crossing.
Were the facts in this case sufficient to raise said issue and require its submission to the jury? The relevant facts, as found by the Court of Civil Appeals, are:
Again:
Again, in the opinion on rehearing:
It is admitted that at the time of this accident there was no statute or city ordinance requiring defendant in error to maintain a flagman at this crossing.
The rule of law applicable to the determination of the issue now before this court has been well stated, as follows:
M K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Hurdle, 142 S. W. 992 ( ).
The opinion above quoted was justified by a former opinion of the Supreme Court of Texas, in which Judge Brown used the following language:
M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Magee, 92 Tex. 616, 50 S. W. 1013.
Judge Brown, in the opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Homan v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co.
...Railroad Co., 72 Mo. 451; Galveston Wharf Co. v. Peterson, 11 Fed. (2d) 775; North Pac. Rd. Co. v. Moe, 13 Fed. 377; Tisdale v. Railroad Co., 16 A.L.R. 1280, 228 S.W. 133; Peppers v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 316 Mo. 1104, 295 S.W. 759; Herrell v. Frisco Ry. Co., 18 S.W. (2d) 485; Hinzeman v.......
-
Caldwell v. Southern Ry. Co, 381.
...or other business, or by reason of some like cause. Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Ives, supra; Tisdale v. Panhandle & S. F. R. Co, Tex.Com.App. 228 S.W. 133, 16 A. L.R. 1264. Thus in the Grand Trunk R. Co. case the following charge was ap-[10 S.E.2d. 698]proved [144 U.S. 408, 12 S.Ct. 683,-36 L. Ed......
-
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co.
...July 5, 2012) (applying the alternative approach sometimes called the two issue rule), with Tisdale v. Panhandle & S.F. Ry. Co., 228 S.W. 133, 137 (Tex. Comm'n App.1921) (applying the approach followed in federal...
-
Homan v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
...... F. 129; Welsch v. Railroad Co., 72 Mo. 451;. Galveston Wharf Co. v. Peterson, 11 F.2d 775;. North Pac. Rd. Co. v. Moe, 13 F. 377; Tisdale v. Railroad Co., 16 A. L. R. 1280, 228 S.W. 133;. Peppers v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 316 Mo. 1104,. 295 S.W. 759; Herrell v. Frisco Ry. Co., ......