Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. Grubbs

67 S.W. 519, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 1902 Tex. App. LEXIS 137
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 27, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 67 S.W. 519 (Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. Grubbs) 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
Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. Grubbs, 67 S.W. 519, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 1902 Tex. App. LEXIS 137 (Tex. Ct. App. 1902).

Opinion

PLEASANTS, Associate Justice.

This suit was brought by appellee to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of - appellant. Plaintiff’s cause of action is thus stated in his petiton:

“The defendant had a depot at Lufkin, Texas, which, with its platform and waiting room, abutted on its line of railway. It was' used by defendant as a place for passengers to get on and off its trains, and all persons who were lawfully at said depot were accustomed, and authorized by defendant, to pass over and along the platform, which was at a height of several feet from the ground at all points. That the depot was used as a place for passengers to await the arrival of trains, and the defendant was bound to keep the same in a safe condition, and to provide lights for the platform and approaches thereto at night, which it failed to do-.
“That defendant cut a large hole -in its platform prior to May 23, 1901, and on said date plaintiff was in the said town of Lufkin, and went to the said depot about 12 o’clock on the night of said date, where he purchased a ticket for the purpose of becoming a passenger on defendant’s train from Lufkin to Nacogdoches, it being then only a short time before said train was due to arrive.
“That when he reached the station it was dark and raining, and the depot was only dimly -lighted at one side and on one end, but on the other side and other end' it was very dark, and was not lighted at all.
“That the train was late, and it became necessary for plaintiff to go to á remote part of defendant’s platform, for the purpose of urinating, no place being prepared by defendant for the use of its passengers, and being unaware of danger, and free from fault or negligence, started to walk across the platform, and by reason of defendant’s willful, careless, and negligent disregard of' its duty in cutting a hole in its platform, and willfully, carelessly, and negligently leaving said hole in its. platform, and willfully, carelessly and negligently failing and refusing to light its depot at the point where the hole was cut, and. at both sides and ends, plaintiff stepped into said hole, and skinned his leg from the knee down, bruised and sprained his ankle, broke two of his ribs, and sustained serious and permanent internal injuries.”

Defendant answered by general and special exceptions, general denial, and by special plea, the substance of which is as follows: “That if plaintiff was injured it was not through defendant’s negligence, but on account of his own want of care, and as a result of negligence upon his part, in this: Notwithstanding the fact that defendant had used due care in providing safe approaches' and lights for all that portion of its premises, depot platform, and waiting room, where passengers .were reasonably expected to go, or where it was necessary for them to go, and *369 had used due care to keep the same in safe condition, yet plaintiff, without due care, went upon parts of defendant’s premises which were not erected for the use of passengers, which plaintiff knew, or could have known by the exercise of ordinary care; but plaintiff, without light or guide, or precaution of any character, walked along the platform where passengers were not expected to go, and stepped, or fell, off of the same.”

The exceptions were overruled, and a trial by jury in the court below resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for $191. The evidence adduced by plaintiff on the trial of the case is as follows:

E. J. Mantooth testified for the plaintiff: “I reside at Lufkin, and am familiar with the depot. On the morning after plaintiff claims to have been injured, one of his attorneys called me up over the phone, and requested me to go to the depot at Lufkin and make an examination of the platform. I did so. I found a hole in the freight platform just north of the north end of the depot. It was cut out of some planks in the platform. The platform there was about ten feet long, north by south. The hole was made by cutting one of the planks in a slanting manner, so that the piece would fit back without falling through. The hole was about 12x18 inches, and about six inches from the end of the plank on the north end of the platform. A water pipe extended up from the ground to the hole, and the hole had evidently been left there in order to use the pipe and water in case of fire. The platform is about four feet from the ground, and is situated on the north end of the depot, between a side track and a spur track. The passenger departments and waiting rooms are on the south end of the depot. The ticket office and general office of the agent are between the freight department and the passenger departments of the depot. Tickets are sold on the south side of the agent’s office, through windows opening into the waiting rooms. There are no urinals about the depot. The hole in the platform was open the next morning after Grubbs was injured. I have resided in, Lufkin since the town was built, and have often taken passage at defendant’s depot. I have never known passengers to use the portion of the depot platform on the north side of the depot where I found the hole. It could be used by passengers if they went up the steps at the northeast corner of the wareroom, and then around the building along the platform to the waiting room. This would be out of the way, and not the usual and customary way that passengers go. They either go up the steps at the southeast corner of the platform, or else step from the ground upon the platform at the ticket office, where the platform is low. I have never known the platform where plaintiff says he was hurt to be used for any other purpose than the handling of freight. The depot building is about ninety feet long. The place where plaintiff claims to have been hurt is about eighty feet from that part of the depot between the white waiting room and the southeast corner of the platform. The roof of the depot extends out over the platform. The *370 electric light lights up the entire eastern and southern side of the building. It gives ample light for the. purpose of lighting the depot and platform, and the approaches necessary for passengers in going to and from the depot. ■ The ground around the south end and eastern side of the depot is level. There is a light on the corner of the square southeast of the depot, across the street from it, and another southwest of the depot on the street. These lights, with the light at the depot, light up that portion of the street and the buildings sufficiently for any ordinary purpose.”

The plaintiff testified: “On the 23d of last May I went from this place [Nacogdoches] to Lufkin, reaching there about 2:30 in the evening. I got through with my business that evening, and that night, near 12 o'clock, I went over to defendant's depot for the purpose of securing a ticket and taking passage back to Nacogdoches. Soon after reaching the depot I procured a ticket. There were some women and children in the waiting room, lying about on the floor. I suppose it was about midnight. The train was due at 1 o'clock a. m. As the depot was somewhat crowded, I went out on the platform, laid down on some trunks, and went partially to sleep.

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

Related

Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Armitage
39 S.W.2d 108 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Wm. Cameron & Co. v. Polk
177 S.W. 1178 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Drummy v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad
133 N.W. 655 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 S.W. 519, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 1902 Tex. App. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-east-west-texas-railway-co-v-grubbs-texapp-1902.