Williams v. International & G. N. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 March 1902
• Parties: WILLIAMS et al. v. INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

67 S.W. 1085

WILLIAMS et al. v. INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 19, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Comal county; L. W. Moore, Judge.

Action by Alex Williams against the International & Great Northern Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

F. J. Maier, for appellant. S. R. Fisher and N. A. Stedman, for appellee.

FISHER, C. J.

This is an action for damages by the appellant against the railroad company on account of injuries sustained by Alex Williams when a passenger on board of one of appellant's trains by falling therefrom while the same was in motion. Verdict and judgment were in favor of the railroad company. The case made by the plaintiff's petition is to the effect that Alex Williams is a negro, and on the 21st of April, 1900, at New Braunfels, Tex., purchased a first-class ticket over defendant's road from that point to San Antonio and return. He boarded the train at New Braunfels to take passage to San Antonio, and at once sought the negro coach. There were no vacant seats in that coach. Most of the same were occupied by white men. The other coaches were crowded, and it is averred that plaintiff was not permitted, by virtue of the law, to enter therein, as he was a negro. He entered the negro coach, and found standing room only; and while in the coach, and after the train had left New Braunfels, more white men entered that coach, until there was no standing room; all of which, it is alleged, the defendant and its servants knew. By reason of the crowded condition of the car, the plaintiff was crowded therefrom onto the platform. At that time there were passengers on the platform, and others thereafter went upon the platform. When the train was running at full speed, and at the time that Alex Williams was standing upon the platform holding fast to the car, and in as safe and comfortable position as he could get, without negligence upon his part, it is alleged that when the train was going around a curve, owing to the movement thereof and the swaying of the car, some of the passengers on the platform were thrown against the plaintiff, and he was overbalanced and thrown from the train. The petition then proceeds to minutely allege the result of the accident, and the manner in which the plaintiff was injured, and the damages and loss sustained. Then follow averments to the effect that the defendant carelessly and negligently failed and refused to provide sufficient cars and accommodation to haul in safety all of the passengers to whom the defendant had sold tickets, and who were rightfully upon that train; that all the seats were full, and the aisles were crowded; and that, by reason of this condition, many were compelled to stand upon the platforms, which platforms were open, and without protection on the sides; and that the defendant wrongfully, negligently, and carelessly took passengers on the train after all the seats were occupied, and after standing room in the aisles was exhausted, and carelessly and negligently arranged and operated its different trains so as to overcrowd the train; and negligently and carelessly placed its fullest and most crowded trains in those places and positions where the largest number of people were waiting to board the train, and then carelessly and negligently still more crowded the same; that it wrongfully and negligently, and in disregard of the law, violated its duty in permitting white passengers to go into and occupy the negro coach, and thereby to crowd the plaintiff out onto the platform; and that the facts alleged were known to the defendant and its servants, and they took no steps to prevent the same. The defendant pleaded the general denial, and also alleged that plaintiff was on the platform contrary to the rules of the company, and was guilty of contributory negligence; that the defendant furnished two other special trains, which were amply sufficient to accommodate all; that one was only six minutes behind the train the plaintiff took, and the other six minutes behind the second; that the defendant and its agents informed the plaintiff of this, and requested him to go onto one of the other trains, but the plaintiff still recklessly and negligently crowded onto the first train, after the same was full. Appellant's fifth assignment of error complains of the refusal of the court to give the following instructions: "It was the duty of the railroad company to provide separate coaches for the accommodation of white and negro passengers. Conductors on passenger trains provided with separate coaches have authority to refuse white passengers seats in negro coaches, and to refuse negro passengers seats in coaches for white people, and it is the duty of the railroad company to remove all white passengers from negro coaches, and to remove all negro passengers from the coaches for the whites. Therefore, if you believe from the evidence that the plaintiff, Alex Williams, is a negro; that he entered the negro coach; that said negro coach would have had room for him if white people had not been in it; that white men went into said coach, occupied the seats and room, and thereby the said negro coach became so crowded that there was not room in it for the plaintiff; and that on this occasion the plaintiff, Alex Williams, was crowded out on the platform of said negro coach; and that he fell from said platform, or was pushed or thrown from said platform by other passengers being thrown against him from the swaying of the cars, and was injured without contributory negligence on his part,—you will find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and assess the damages as explained in other portions of this charge." Special instruction No. 5, asked by plaintiff and refused by the court, is as follows: "If the plaintiff, Alex Williams, is a negro, he had no right to go into any coach for the purpose of riding therein which was intended for whites, whether there were seats or other room therein or not; but he only had a right to ride in coaches which were intended for negroes; and, therefore, you are instructed that it was not negligence on the part of said plaintiff to stand on the platform, if there was no room for him in the negro coaches, even if there was plenty of room for him in the coaches for white people." The only charge given by the court upon this subject is in the following language: "It is the duty of said company to have separate coaches or compartments thereof for whites and negroes." There is evidence in the record to the effect that the plaintiff purchased at New Braunfels, on the day in question, an excursion ticket from that point to San Antonio and return, and that he was a negro, and, immediately upon boarding the train, went into the coach used for the purpose of transporting negro passengers in order to procure a seat; that the coach was crowded, and all the seats were occupied, and that many were standing in the aisles; and after he entered the car, others came in and he was crowded out of the car onto the platform, and when there, holding on as best he could, by the movement of the train and the jostling of the crowd, he was thrown to the ground while the train was rapidly moving, and sustained some of the injuries complained of. There is evidence tending to show that he was exercising proper care at the time of the accident. While the evidence of the conductor is to the effect that he does not recollect whether the negro coach contained white people or not, there is positive testimony, upon the part of the plaintiff and others, that there were white people in the negro coach, some of whom were occupying some of the seats. The plaintiff, and one of his companions who boarded the train with him, testifies that when the conductor took up their tickets, they asked permission to change to one of the trains following, all of which was refused by the conductor; and the witness Horace Richardson testifies that they stated to the conductor, as a reason for this request, that the car was badly crowded, and that they could not get seats, and that there was hardly standing room; whereupon the conductor informed the plaintiff and Richardson to remain on that train. The conductor testified that he had the authority, when occasion required, to give a passenger a transfer, authorizing him to ride on a train following the one in his control. There is also evidence to the effect that the conductor made no effort to get the white people out of the negro coach, and that the whites were occupying the same when the conductor passed through the coach taking up tickets.

In view of the averments upon this subject, and the facts as stated, it was clearly the duty of the court to give the first of the instructions above set out. It substantially embraced the law upon this subject. Rev. St. arts. 4509, 4516; Wood v. Railroad Co. (Ky.) 42 S. W. 349; Railroad Co. v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. 732. It is an imperative duty, required by law, resting upon the railway companies, to furnish separate coaches or compartments in its cars for whites and blacks, and it is a violation of the law to permit the whites to occupy the coaches set apart for negroes; and the law makes it the duty of the conductor to prevent such occupancy, and to remove whites when found in the negro coaches. The inference from the facts is clear that, if the conductor in this instance had discharged his duty and removed from the negro coach the whites that were occupying it, room could have been found therein for the appellant and others of his race, and crowding and forcing him upon the platform, a place of danger, would have been obviated. The fact that he remained upon the platform under the circumstances as stated would not necessarily charge him with contributory negligence. Under the law he had no right to occupy the other coaches upon the train, which were assigned to whites; and when the circumstances were such that he...