St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of Texas

St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Taylor

149 S.W. 1090, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 760

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 30, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 S.W. 1090 (St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Taylor) 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

St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Taylor, 149 S.W. 1090, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 760 (Tex. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVY, J.

(after stating the facts as above). [1] The first and second assignments contend that the amount of compensation awarded by the jury is excessive. The evidence establishes that the hurt to the head was only slight and of little consequence. But there is evidence, we think, that would require the jury to decide whether or not the appellee’s fall back on the door facing injured or assisted the hurt to his kidney, and if his kidney was injured, as involved in the verdict, the amount was not excessive.

[2] While the paragraph of the charge complained of in the sixth assignment is probably subject to the criticism that its phrasing assumed that the train was started in a sudden and rough manner, it would not, we think, be sufficient grounds to warrant a reversal of the case, for the jury would reasonably have understood from the whole charge that it was intended to leave for their decision the question of whether there was a sudden and rough movement of the train. Hence no injury resulted to appellant.

*1091 We have considered the remaining assignments, and they are all overruled as not presenting, we think, any reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

LEVY, J.

(after stating the facts as above). [1] The first and second assignments contend that the amount of compensation awarded by the jury is excessive. The evidence establishes that the hurt to the head was only slight and of little consequence. But there is evidence, we think, that would require the jury to decide whether or not the appellee’s fall back on the door facing injured or assisted the hurt to his kidney, and if his kidney was injured, as involved in the verdict, the amount was not excessive.

[2] While the paragraph of the charge complained of in the sixth assignment is probably subject to the criticism that its phrasing assumed that the train was started in a sudden and rough manner, it would not, we think, be sufficient grounds to warrant a reversal of the case, for the jury would reasonably have understood from the whole charge that it was intended to leave for their decision the question of whether there was a sudden and rough movement of the train. Hence no injury resulted to appellant.

*1091 We have considered the remaining assignments, and they are all overruled as not presenting, we think, any reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.W. 1090, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-southwestern-ry-co-of-texas-v-taylor-texapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack