Hines v. Hadnot

220 S.W. 186, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 278
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 13, 1920
DocketNo. 529.
StatusPublished

This text of 220 S.W. 186 (Hines v. Hadnot) 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
Hines v. Hadnot, 220 S.W. 186, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 278 (Tex. Ct. App. 1920).

Opinion

BROOKE, J.

The plaintiff, Emma Hadnot, a feme sole, filed her* original petition in the district court, Jefferson county, Tex., on the 23d day of February, A. D. 1918, and thereafter, on June 17, 1918, filed her first amended original petition, being the petition on which she went to trial, said petition alleging that the plaintiff went into the defendant’s station at Voth, in Jefferson county, and on leaving same in the nighttime fell from the platform, something like four feet, to the ground, and was bruised and suffered a concussion of the spine and various abdominal injuries, producing hemorrhage, and other injuries of a permanent and incurable nature. *187 She also alleged that the defendant company was negligent in not having a light on- said platform, and that the defendant was negligent in not having a railing about the end of said platform, and that the plaintiff was not negligent in leaving the platform as she sought to leave it.

The defendant demurred to plaintiff’s petition, and denied the allegations contained in plaintiff’s petition, and specially pleaded as a defense that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory .negligence in seeking to leave the platform as she did, and that such act of negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the accident. Defendant’s demurrer and exceptions were overruled, defendant excepting. At the close of the testimony the defendant requested a peremptory instruction, in its favor, which was refused by the court, and thereafter said cause was submitted on special issues to the jury, which special issues were answered in favor of the plaintiff, assessing plaintiff’s damages at $500, and thereafter judgment was entered against the defendant for said sum. Defendant duly filed a motion for new trial, and later an amended motion for new trial, and the same, being presented to the court, was in all things overruled, defendant excepting, and from such action of the court the case has been properly brought to this court on writ of error.

This suit was originally instituted against the Texas & New Orleans Railroad' Company as defendant, but it subsequently developed that Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, had charge of and was operating the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company, the original defendant, together with certain other railroads in the United States of America, and that any cause of action, if any plaintiff had, was against the said W. D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, and the said Walker D. Hines, having issued an order that, where causes of action arose during the operation by himself of said roads, he should be substituted as defendant, and the railroad company should be dismissed as the defendant, it was agreed between the attorneys, Messrs. Guy Robertson and Leslie E. Eason, representing the plaintiff, and Orgain, Butler, Bolinger & Carroll, representing the defendant Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company, and Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, that the said Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, be substituted in place of the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company where the name of such company appeared among the papers on file.

Appellant’s first assignment of error is as follows:

“The court erred, to the prejudice of the defendant, in overruling and refusing to sustain defendant’s request for peremptory instruction, such requested peremptory instruction being as follows: ‘You are instructed that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in trying to leave the platform as she did, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of her injury, if any, and you will render your verdict against the plaintiff, and for the defendant, and you will so find.’ ”

Article 6591, Vernon’s Sayles’ Texas Civil Statutes, provides:

“Every railroad company doing business in this state shall keep its depots or passenger houses in this state lighted and warmed, and open to the ingress and egress of all passengers who are entitled to go therein, for a time not less than one hour before the arrival and after the departure of all trains carrying passengers on such railroad; and every such railroad company, for each failure or refusal to comply with the provisions of this article, shall forfeit and pay to the state of Texas the sum of fifty dollars, which may be sued for and recovered in the name of the state in any court of competent jurisdiction, and shall be liable to the party injured for all damages by reason of such failure.”

We will discuss the testimony of the witnesses on the issue of contributory negligence. The plaintiff, Emma I-Iadnot, testified:

“As to how I got to the depot, well, we walked from Mrs. Keith’s house over to the office, and then to the depot, and I had never gone there before to the depot. I did not go down the track to the depot. I just went to the depot and came in this way; it was level. I came in from the side where the railroad is, and there was no light, and I couldn’t see which way I was going, and we made -a mistake and went in the white side, and a lady told us to go around in the back, and she shone a candle from the window to show us where we could go in it, and we went in there and put down our bundles, and naturally we wanted to step out, and we went outside, and we thought we were going as we did when we went in. After I go.t in there, Jane Perry and Ethron Rhone were with me. Ethron is at Mineral Wells. Those two were with me when I went into the colored waiting room. I then handed them to him, and she asked and said, ‘Let’s go outside,’ and we went outside the door, and while I said, ‘Let’s go’ — when I started, I fell off that place, whatever it was, backwards. It was cold that night, and drizzling rain. There was no light when I stepped out, that I seed. I was out just a few moments when I fell off; I just stepped on out and fell off that platform; I said it was so dark I couldn’t see. I fell immediately, right off. I cannot form any idea about how far I fell. It seems like to me it was a very far distance. When I hit the ground it seemed like everything went dark. As to the platform, I had never been there before. ■ I had never been on that side of the road before. When I got on to the depot, I did not have to climb up on anything; I went from the ground right onto the platform.”

On cross-examination she testified:

“I had never been about the Voth depot with Jane Perry before; never had been to that depot, never before. I don’t know what time the train was due to leave Voth that night; they just said the train was late. They did not tell me how late it was; they said it was a few *188 minutes. I don’t- know what time the train was due there.
“When I got upon the platform I didn’t step up about a foot to get up on the platform. There is a step at the platform, but we didn’t have to step no foot up, because I went to the white side first." I could see by the light shining sufficiently well to take that step and get up on the platform to get to the white waiting room, not the colored waiting room. The waiting room I got into was the white part, and she asked me out of there. I could see by that light showing from that window sufficiently well to take that step on the platform, and to get into the white waiting room. I didn’t fall in doing that. There was a lamp in the white waiting room.

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

Related

Stamp v. Eastern Ry. Co. of New Mexico
161 S.W. 450 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Bennett v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
18 A. 668 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1889)
Hickman v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
167 S.W. 1178 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Reed v. Axtell & Myers
4 S.E. 587 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1887)
Massey v. Seller
77 P. 397 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1904)
Illinois Central Railroad v. Sanderson
192 S.W. 869 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1917)
Emery v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
80 N.W. 627 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1899)
Bremer v. Pleiss
98 N.W. 945 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1904)
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Turley
85 F. 369 (Eighth Circuit, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
220 S.W. 186, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-hadnot-texapp-1920.