Handley v. H. & T. C. R'y Co.

Texas Commission of Appeals

Handley v. H. & T. C. R'y Co.

2 Posey 282

CourtTexas Commission of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1880

DocketNo. 815

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Posey 282 (Handley v. H. & T. C. R'y Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Commission of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Handley v. H. & T. C. R'y Co., 2 Posey 282 (Tex. Super. Ct. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion.— Ordinarily, when a passenger buys his ticket and takes his seat oh the cars, there is an implied agreement on the part of the railway company to carry him in safety to his journey’s end. The consideration of this agreement being the price of the ticket, the company is bound to use such care as should secure the safety of the [283]*283passenger. But we take the verdict in this case as establishing the fact that the plaintiff was not entitled to all the rights of a passenger, properly so called. She was on the train with the intention to obtain a ride without paying j the fare. She was a fraud upon the company. She was ; not, therefore, in a position to demand of the company’s j servants the same watchful care for her safety which they are bound to give regular passengers. The most she could claim would be, that they should abstain from intentional i injury, or that they should not be guilty of that gross neg- i ligence which the law regards as equally reprehensible.

Affibmeb.

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

Opinion.— Ordinarily, when a passenger buys his ticket and takes his seat oh the cars, there is an implied agreement on the part of the railway company to carry him in safety to his journey’s end. The consideration of this agreement being the price of the ticket, the company is bound to use such care as should secure the safety of the [283]*283passenger. But we take the verdict in this case as establishing the fact that the plaintiff was not entitled to all the rights of a passenger, properly so called. She was on the train with the intention to obtain a ride without paying j the fare. She was a fraud upon the company. She was ; not, therefore, in a position to demand of the company’s j servants the same watchful care for her safety which they are bound to give regular passengers. The most she could claim would be, that they should abstain from intentional i injury, or that they should not be guilty of that gross neg- i ligence which the law regards as equally reprehensible.

Affibmeb.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Posey 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handley-v-h-t-c-ry-co-texcommnapp-1880.