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: 325
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:
1884.] TEX. & ST . L R' Co. v. SuGGs. 325
Opinion of the court.
The facts of this case illustrate the wisdom of the rule which
exacts such care.
The passenger-coach which ran off of the track, from which it is
claimed the injury to appellee resulted, was inspected at Texarkana,
but when it reached the tank at Mt. Pleasant this same car left the
track. There seems to have been no regular car inspector there,
That car was again put on the track. The fact that it had left the
track would indicate that either the car or track were not in good
order, for cars do not ordinarily leave the track if they are; under
such circumstances, was it not the duty of those persons in charge
of the train to examine and know what caused the derailment? or
might they say, " this car was inspected at Texarkana, and thereby
my employer has exercised, through another agent, all the care
which the law exacts of him."
Such a rule as that contended for by appellant would relieve carriers
by rail, practically, from the duty, through proper agents, of
exercising, at all times and in all places, that degree of care without.
which there is no safety to passengers.
It was urged that there was no evidence that the injury of which
the appellee complains resulted from any neglect of the railway
company, or that either the car or track was defective.
The evidence shows that the car left the track at the tank at Mt.
Pleasant, and that without being in any way repaired it was placed
on the track again, and that after running a short distance it was derailed
again and turned, over.
Afterwards, by another train, it was taken up and taken to Tyler,
and whef inspected there it was found to be broken; but in reference
to these breaks witnesses for appellant gave it as their opinions
that they would not affect the safety of the car. They, however,
described the injuries, and it was for the jury to pass on their probable
effect, under all the evidence. The same witnesses stated that
the injuries to the car of which they spoke, and of which they knew
nothing except from an inspection of the car after it reached Tyler,
occurred when the car left the track. Their statements were matter
of opinion, but if it be conceded that their opinions were
correct as to the cause of the injuries to the car, then, did the breaks
occur when the car left the track at the tank or at time the car was
overturned?
The witnesses did not profess to, and in the nature of things,
they not being present, could not, testify as to this matter. If the
breaks occurred when the car left the track the first time, it was for
the jury to determine whether it was negligence to put it on the
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/m1/347/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .