Gallagher v. Bowie

17 S.W. 407, 66 Tex. 265, 1886 Tex. LEXIS 498
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMay 18, 1886
DocketCase No. 5891
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 17 S.W. 407 (Gallagher v. Bowie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gallagher v. Bowie, 17 S.W. 407, 66 Tex. 265, 1886 Tex. LEXIS 498 (Tex. 1886).

Opinion

Robertson, Associate Justice.

It was held by this court in Ezell v. Dodson, 60 Tex., 331., that for personal injuries done to the wife the damages would be community property, and, generally, properly recoverable only at the suit of the husband. The elements of damage in such cases have been repeatedly stated in former decisions, and mental suffering has never been excluded from the list. The charge of the court on this branch of the case was entirely unexceptionable

Mrs. Bowie was a passenger in appellant’s stage for hire, and appellant owed her the degree of care due by a common carrier of passengers. The court instructed the jury that it was the duty of the carrier to employ a competent driver, and of the driver to use the “utmost care” for the safety of the passengers. The jury was not instructed that the negligence of the driver was that of his master. This omission could only have prejudiced appellee. The charge properly stated the degree of care exacted by the law of carriers of passengers. Thompson on Carriers, 200; Hutchins on Carriers, sec. 501; Shear. & Redf. on Neg., sec. 266. That degree is generally described by the authorities as “the utmost,” and the use of this expression in the charge was not objectionable. If it needed explanation or qualification, appellant should have requested a special charge.

There was no lack of evidence to sustain the verdict. The horses were left practically free to run away, if they had that disposition. Any reasonable caution would have prevented the injury.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

[Opinion delivered May 18, 1886.]

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

Related

Few v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company
463 S.W.2d 424 (Texas Supreme Court, 1971)
Taylor v. Catalon
166 S.W.2d 102 (Texas Supreme Court, 1942)
Hinrichs v. Texas & N. O. R.
153 S.W.2d 859 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Shudde
76 S.W.2d 561 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Conley
260 S.W. 561 (Texas Supreme Court, 1924)
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Conley
260 S.W. 561 (Texas Supreme Court, 1924)
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Conley
236 S.W. 521 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Labonte v. Davidson
175 P. 588 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1918)
Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Kidwell
249 S.W. 303 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Beaty v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
185 S.W. 238 (Texas Supreme Court, 1916)
Beaty v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas
185 S.W. 298 (Texas Supreme Court, 1916)
Forrester v. Southern Pacific Co.
36 Nev. 247 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1913)
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Woodall
159 S.W. 1012 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railroad v. Olmstead
120 S.W. 596 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1909)
In re Estate of Foster
4 Coffey 33 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1909)
International & Great Northern Railroad v. Shuford
81 S.W. 1189 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1904)
Taillon v. Mears
74 P. 421 (Montana Supreme Court, 1903)
Dallas Consolidated Electric Street Railway Co. v. Broadhurst
63 S.W. 315 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1902)
Harris v. Flowers
52 S.W. 1046 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 S.W. 407, 66 Tex. 265, 1886 Tex. LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallagher-v-bowie-tex-1886.