H. & T. C. R. R. v. Rand

Court of Appeals of Texas

H. & T. C. R. R. v. Rand

1 White & W. 100

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 21, 1882

DocketNo. 2466, R. Book No. 4, p. 220

StatusPublished

This text of 1 White & W. 100 (H. & T. C. R. R. v. Rand) 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

H. & T. C. R. R. v. Rand, 1 White & W. 100 (Tex. Ct. App. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 255. Railroad; liability of company for damages occasioned by carelessness, inattention and neglect of agent. Where a married woman, just recovered from a spell of sickness, and desirous of returning to her home and family, applied to the ticket agent of a railroad for a ticket and transportation over said road, and offered to pay said agent the price of said ticket, this occurring about ten o’clock at night, and a few minutes before the train passed the station; but that, owing to the carelessness and inattention of the ticket agent, she failed to get her ticket, and the agent also failing to signal the train [101]*101to stop at said station, it passed on without her, and afterwards she was compelled to walk a distance of about two miles over a tiresome road, in the night, to get a place to stay the balance of the night; and that by reason of all this she became sick, and remained sick a long time, and suffered mentally and physically, held, that the correct conclusions of law were found by the trial court as follows: “ 1. Plaintiff was entitled to judgment for damages which resulted, and might reasonably be expected to result, from being left under the circumstances. 2. Mental suffering máy be estimated as a basis for damages. 3. The negligence of the agent is the negligence of the railroad company, and the defendant is liable therefor.” [Redfield on Carriers, sec. 425 et seq.; Williams v. Vanderbilt, 28 N. Y. 217; Ward v. Vanderbilt, 34 How. Prac. R. 144; Heirn v. McCaughan, 32 Miss. 17.]

June 21, 1882.

Affirmed, with damages.

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

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 255. Railroad; liability of company for damages occasioned by carelessness, inattention and neglect of agent. Where a married woman, just recovered from a spell of sickness, and desirous of returning to her home and family, applied to the ticket agent of a railroad for a ticket and transportation over said road, and offered to pay said agent the price of said ticket, this occurring about ten o’clock at night, and a few minutes before the train passed the station; but that, owing to the carelessness and inattention of the ticket agent, she failed to get her ticket, and the agent also failing to signal the train [101]*101to stop at said station, it passed on without her, and afterwards she was compelled to walk a distance of about two miles over a tiresome road, in the night, to get a place to stay the balance of the night; and that by reason of all this she became sick, and remained sick a long time, and suffered mentally and physically, held, that the correct conclusions of law were found by the trial court as follows: “ 1. Plaintiff was entitled to judgment for damages which resulted, and might reasonably be expected to result, from being left under the circumstances. 2. Mental suffering máy be estimated as a basis for damages. 3. The negligence of the agent is the negligence of the railroad company, and the defendant is liable therefor.” [Redfield on Carriers, sec. 425 et seq.; Williams v. Vanderbilt, 28 N. Y. 217; Ward v. Vanderbilt, 34 How. Prac. R. 144; Heirn v. McCaughan, 32 Miss. 17.]

June 21, 1882.

Affirmed, with damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 White & W. 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-t-c-r-r-v-rand-texapp-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack