Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 324
xxii, 836 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
324 TEX. & ST. L. R'Y Co. V. SUGGS. [Tyler Term,
Opinion of the court.
excepted to the claim for exemplary damages, and specially answered
by setting up the fact that the accident was inevitable and
caused by no lack of care on the part of the defendant company.
Appellee obtained a judgment for $1,250.
Herndon & Cain, for appellant, cited: R. R. Co. v. Lyde, 57 Tex.,
508; R. R. Co. v. Halloran, 53 Tex., 47; R. R. Co. v. Bracken, 59
Tex., 71; Lewis v. Flint & P. . R. . R., 23 Amer. Law Reg., p.
604; 1 Sutherland on Damages, p. 17; 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases,
'188.
WT. P. MecLean, for appellee.
STAYTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.- It is urged that the court erred in
giving the following charge: "The defendant, in order to provide
for the safety of their passengers, are bound to employ competent
agents and employees to run their trains and prepare the same, and
such agents must exercise constant care and diligence in keeping
their trains and roadway in order, and unless the evidence shows
that the agents of defendant having charge of the train upon which
the plaintiff was a passenger, and whose duty it was to inspect the
same, performed their respective duties, and exercised such diligence
as a very careful man would exercise in his own affairs, then the defendant
would be liable for such actual damages as the evidence
shows resulted from the injuries sustained," etc.
Other parts of the charge stated the duties and liabilities of the
respective parties very fully and fairly.
The charge complained of is objected to on the ground that it
assumes that it was the duty of the persons running the train to
inspect it.
If this be true, it certainly gave to the jury a correct rule of law,
unless it be true that a carrier of passengers by rail, who causes its
cars to be inspected at certain places on its line by persons who are
employed for that express purpose, thereby uses all the care which
the law imposes on it for the safety of passengers, and relieves
those engaged in operating trains from the duty of examining their
trains-in any respect between regular inspection stations.
It is peculiarly the duty of those operating trains between such
points to examine and watch the trains in their charge that they
may detect and repair any defect likely to imperil passengers, and
for their failure to do so, in so far as they can by the exercise of a
high degree of care, their employers are responsible if damage to a
passenger result.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/346/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .