Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Zumwalt

226 S.W. 1080, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 1208
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 22, 1920
DocketNo. 1729.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 226 S.W. 1080 (Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Zumwalt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Zumwalt, 226 S.W. 1080, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 1208 (Tex. Ct. App. 1920).

Opinion

HALL, J.

Appellee, Zumwalt, brought this action against the appellant to recover damages on account of a collision between the defendant’s passenger train and a truck which appellee was driving over a public crossing in the town of Yega. Appellee alleged that defendant was negligent: (1) In failing to warn plaintiff of the approach of said train; (2) in failing to have a competent watchman, or any watchman, at the crossing to give warning of the approach of said train; (3) in failing to give plaintiff any notice whatsoever of the approach of said train; (4) in allowing a long freight train to stand so near the crossing on the middle track as to cut off the plaintiff’s view to the westward along the north track, thereby preventing plaintiff, although in the exercise of ordinary care for the safety of himself and his truck, from seeing down said north track to the west and from seeing the approaching passenger train until it was within a few feet of the crossing and of plaintiff; and (5) in failing to signal or otherwise notify the plaintiff of the approach of said train or its danger therefrom. A number of special issues were submitted to the jury, inquiring whether defendant’s employees sounded the whistle and rang the bell as the train approached the crossing, but the.judgment is based upon the affirmative finding of the jury to special issue No. 2, inquiring whether defendant was guilty of negligence in failing to have a watchman at the crossing where the collision occurred at the time of the occurrence, and whether such failure and negligence, if any, were the proximate cause of the damages. The jury further found that under the circumstances ap-pellee was not guilty of contributory negligence and that the extent of the damages to his truck was $1,558.36. Appellee entered a remittitur of $30, and judgment was entered for the amount of the verdict less the amount of the remittitur.

It appears from the record that the line of appellant’s railway through the town of Vega runs east and west; that the highway traveled by appellee as he approached the town of Yega from the east runs nearly parallel with the railroad track, until it enters the limits of the town, when it turns directly north about two blocks from the crossing of the track where the accident occurred; that there are three separate tracks at this crossing, running east and west; that the south track, or the first track crossed by appellee, is known as the “team trackabout 30 feet north of the “team track” is the “passing track,” and about 14 feet north of the “passing track” is the main line, upon which the accident occurred; that the highway is known as the Ozark Train and is the main thoroughfare through the town of Vega, and is the *1081 one generally traveled- by the public; that after the highway turns north and about 150 to 180 feet south of the crossing, in the town is the Yega Garage, on the west of the highway; north of this and immediately south of the track and west of the highway is the scale or schoolhouse, and west of this, along the railroad right of way, is a large elevator, two oil tanks, the Magnolia filling station, and a warehouse; that the highway, which is also the principal street of the town, is 60 to 80 feet wide. At the time of the accident, there was standing on the middle or passing track, about 14 feet west of the crossing, a freight train, of approximately 30 cars; the caboose being next to the crossing. There were also some box cars on the first or “team track” west of the crossing. There was no watchmap, flagman, or other person at the crossing to warn appellee of the approaching passenger train. The crew of the freight train were'all at the Vega Hotel at dinner. The passenger train, which struck plaintiff’s truck, was due at Vega at 1 p. m. and was running about} 10 minutes behind schedule time. On that day a severe wind was blowing and the air was full of dust and sand. The building, structures, freight train, and box cars south on the main track and west of the highway almost entirely obstructed plaintiff’s view to the west, from which direction the passenger train came. The noise of the wind tended to prevent travelers from hearing the bell and whistle of the approaching passenger train. Appellee testified in substance as follows:

“Along there on the west side of the street, going north, Harrel Bros, have a garage. I started to stop there and slowed up, but decided to go on over the crossing to the hotel for dinner. That garage is about 50 yards from the railroad crossing. When I changed my mind about slowing up and stopping there, I went on up to the railroad track and there met this train. I approached the railroad track, going very slow — going something like 4 miles an hour. At the cro'ssing there are three tracks. The first track is what they call a ‘team track.’ It goes by way of the elevator and is used to load or unload material. Then you come to the ‘passing track.’ This is something like 30 feet north of the team track; then the main line is something like 14 feet north of the passing track. The tracks run east and west and the public road or street goes north and south at that point. I continued to go slow because I always make it a rule to go slow by crossings. The caboose is the part of the freight train that was standing next to the crossing. There was an engine on the other (west) end of that train. It was a long train. I could not see the other end of it from the south until I got up after I crossed the team track. After I crossed the team track I could see the other end then. It was on the middle track. I could not see the other end of that freight train because there was an elevator and some cars standing along there, and you could not see up that way until after you passed the team track. I proceeded towards the middle track and was going something like 4 miles an hour — going very slow. As I proceeded I came out from behind the freight train, and, just as I came out from behind it, I saw the passenger train coming, and my front wheels were practically on the rail, and I didn’t have time to do anything. I knew I could not get across, and I knew if I stopped, and the train hit me square, why it would turn it over on me, and I threw the clutch out and turned it right just as far down the track as I could; turned it to the east, the way the train was going. I looked up and down the track for signals or for trains as I approached the crossing. Besides looking, I was driving on toward the crossing, and I was listening; I couldn’t hear anything. I never heard any bells; I didn’t see no smoke; I didn’t hear no whistles; I couldn’t see a thing in the world until after I drove out from around the freight train. Coming as close as it was, I didn’t have a chance in the world to get away; I was practically on the north track, on which this passenger train approached, when I saw this passenger train. I just had come over the line.
“The engine of my truck sticks out quite a ways in front of the seat; something like six foot from the seat where I was sitting up to the front of the engine. There was not a flagman, or watchman, or any one there at the crossing. All the warning I had was when I seen this train. When I seen the train coming, I throwed my clutch out, put the brakes on, and turned to the right, going to the east. My brakes were in good condition. My truck was in first class condition, absolutely good shape. My brakes did take. I used all the strength or force I had to apply them, and I am a strong, healthy man.

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

Related

Texas & New Orleans Railroad v. Adams
368 S.W.2d 902 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1963)
Houston Electric Co. v. Settle
51 S.W.2d 648 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Morris v. Ridenour
43 S.W.2d 147 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
El Paso Electric Co. v. Collins
10 S.W.2d 397 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Schmoker v. French
7 S.W.2d 177 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Smith v. Galveston-Houston Electric Ry. Co.
265 S.W. 267 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Zumwalt
239 S.W. 912 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1922)
Baker v. Hodges
231 S.W. 844 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 S.W. 1080, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 1208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-r-i-g-ry-co-v-zumwalt-texapp-1920.