Watson v. H. & T. C. R'y Co.
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Harris. Tried below before the Hon. James Masterson. For a full and complete statement of the case, that contained in appellee’s brief is adopted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Harris. Tried below before the Hon. James Masterson. For a full and complete statement of the case, that contained in appellee’s brief is adopted. On the loth of June, 1876, appellant filed his original petition against the appellee, alleging that on the 1st of March, 1876, while in the service of appellee as a brakeman, in the discharge of his duty as such, in endeavoring to couple cars belonging to a freight train, his right hand was caught between the cars and so injured as to necessitate the loss of two of his fingers; that his injuries were caused by a defective drawhead of…
1Opinion of the Court
Watts, J. Com. App.
Among other things, the court instructed the jury that “ If the proof shows that plaintiff was a brakeman, and as such it was his duty to couple any and all cars, damaged or sound, then if he, in attending to his duty, received an injury, he cannot recover, unless defendant did not do what was usual and proper in placing the car on the side track or by chalking on the car out of order,’ or in some other manner reasonably calculated to put an ordinary man on notice.” This charge is objected to as being upon the weight of evidence, and misleading.
If, as claimed, it was the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Flanagan v. the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by17 opinions
- Eames v. T. & N. O. R'y Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1885
- Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- I. & G. N. R'y Co. v. HesterTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. CallbreathTexas Supreme Court · 1886
- City of Teague v. RadfordTexas Commission of Appeals · 1933
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.