Williams v. T. & P. R. R. Co.

Decision Date23 October 1883
Docket NumberCase No. 1509.
Citation60 Tex. 205
CourtTexas Supreme Court
PartiesJOS. S. WILLIAMS AND WIFE v. THE T. & P. R. R. CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from Wood. Tried below before the Hon. John C. Robertson.

This suit was brought by Joseph Williams and his wife against the defendant company, alleging in substance that on the 17th of December, 1880, their son George, a child about eight years old, left his home without their knowledge, and engaged in playing on the platform at defendant's depot; that the defendant company, knowing this, continued to move the cars by the platform, until the child, in attempting to leap from the platform upon the moving car, fell and was run over and killed by the car; that the car was detached from the engine, and that no one was upon it; that no one of mature age or discretion was with the child to protect it from danger; that knowing the danger the company's agents “willingly” neglected to make, order or advise the child to go away; that the plaintiffs and others had, prior to that time, instructed the railway company, its agents and employees at that place, to make their children go away if found playing on the platform, and if necessary to whip them to compel them to go away. They claimed actual damages $1,300, and exemplary damages $10,000. The defendant excepted to the sufficiency of the petition, and the exceptions were sustained.

Hart & Buchanan and Giles & Cate, for appellants.

James Turner, for appellee.

C. B. Stewart, also for appellee.

WEST, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

Taken and considered together as a whole, we have come to the conclusion that the district court committed no error by its action in sustaining the exception and demurrer to the pleadings of the appellants as amended.

There is no averment in the amended petition that can be properly said to charge such negligence on the appellee, under the facts detailed, as would make it, under our previous rulings, responsible in damages to the appellants.

There is an averment to the effect that the moving car was detached from the engine, and that there was no person on it at the time when the child was killed by it. But it is not distinctly stated, nor does it anywhere sufficiently appear from the pleadings, that this act of negligence of appellee, if indeed under the special facts set up in this case it can be called negligence to have no one on the moving car in question, was the direct cause of the injury. It is not alleged that the presence of some one on the car would have prevented the accident.

It is nowhere alleged or pretended that, after the child attempted the fatal leap, any care or diligence on the part of the appellee could have saved his life. On the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Gunn v. Ohio River R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 9 Diciembre 1896
    ...Neg. § 130;Bish. Non-Con. Law, § 352; 66 Miss. 560; 85 Mich. 280; 57 Pa. St. 172; 113 Pa. St. 412; 24 Ohio St. 631, 670; 43 Ohio St. 91; 60 Tex. 205; 33 111. App. 450; 138 111. 370; 83 Ala. 381; 16 Neb. 139; 88 Va. 267; 78 Iowa, 396; Beach. Contrib. Feg. (2d Ed.) § 131; 2 Thomp. Neg. 1191; ......
  • Atlanta & C. Air Line Ry. Co. v. Gravitt
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • 26 Febrero 1894
    ...113 Pa. St. 412, 6 A. 269; Railway Co. v. Snyder, 24 Ohio St. 670; Railway Co. v. Eadie, 43 Ohio St. 91, 1 N.E. 519; Williams v. Railroad Co., 60 Tex. 205; Railway Co. Wilcox, 33 Ill.App. 450, affirmed by the supreme court 138 Ill. 370, 27 N.E. 899; Iron Co. v. Brawley, 83 Ala. 371, 3 So. 5......
  • Atlanta & C. Air-line Ry. Co v. Gravitt
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • 26 Febrero 1894
    ...22 Vt. 213. Connecticut—Daley v. Railroad Co., 26 Conn. 591. Iowa—Wymore v. Mahaska Co., 78 Iowa, 396, 43 N. W. 264. Texas—WiUiams v. Railroad Co., 60 Tex. 205; Railway Co. v. Moore, 59 Tex. 64. Missouri-Winters v. Railway Co., 99 Mo. 509, 12 S. W. 652, distinguishing Stillson v. Railroad C......
  • Riley v. Salt Lake Rapid Transit Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 27 Julio 1894
    ...... the child were alive and suing, it might not be attributed to. him. Tiffany on Death by Wrongful Act, §§ 69-70;. Ry. Co. v. State, 30 Md. 47; Hurst v. Ry. Co., 84 Mich. 539; Ry. Co. v. Wilcox, 138 Ill. 370; Ry. Co. v. James, 81 Pa. St. 194; Williams. v. Ry. Co., 60 Tex. 205. The statute, Session Laws 1892,. page 46, amending § 3371, Comp. Laws 1888, which. provides that nine of a jury may render a verdict, is in. conflict with Article Seven of the amendments to the. constitution of the United States. Webster v. Reid,. 11 How. 437; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT