Cassady v. M., K. T. Ry. Co. of Texas

Texas Supreme Court

Cassady v. M., K. T. Ry. Co. of Texas

184 S.W. 180, 108 Tex. 61, 1916 Tex. LEXIS 49

Texas Supreme Court·Decided March 29, 1916·No. Application No. 9380.·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

We deem it proper to say that we do not subscribe to the statement in the opinion of the honorable Court of Civil Appeals that it is a general holding of this court that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, as a rule, in cases of injury sustained by a servant in the services of a master. McCray v. Railway Co., 89 Tex. 168, recognizes that in such cases the doctrine does not apply. We think the facts of the present case bring it within the rule, equally announced in McCray v. Railway Co., that the circumstances of a particular accident may themselves furnish proof of negligence; and it is for this reason that the writ of error is refused.

Writ of error refused. *Page 62

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

We deem it proper to say that we do not subscribe to the statement in the opinion of the honorable Court of Civil Appeals that it is a general holding of this court that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, as a rule, in cases of injury sustained by a servant in the services of a master. McCray v. Railway Co., 89 Tex. 168, recognizes that in such cases the doctrine does not apply. We think the facts of the present case bring it within the rule, equally announced in McCray v. Railway Co., that the circumstances of a particular accident may themselves furnish proof of negligence; and it is for this reason that the writ of error is refused.

Writ of error refused. *Page 62

Cassady v. M., K. T. Ry. Co. of Texas, 184 S.W. 180, 108 Tex. 61, 1916 Tex. LEXIS 49 (Tex. 1916).

Pincite

184 S.W. 180 (Cassady v. M., K. T. Ry. Co. of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related