St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Christian
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from Lamar. Tried below before Hon. E. D. McClelland. 1. The court erred in refusing to charge as follows: “If you believe from the evidence that deceased voluntarily went upon defendant’s track at a place of danger and exposed himself to peril from approaching trains, and that he had the intelligence to appreciate the dangers of the situation, and the discretion to avoid them, then plaintiff can not recover, and you will find for the defendant.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lamar. Tried below before Hon. E. D. McClelland. 1. The court erred in refusing to charge as follows: “If you believe from the evidence that deceased voluntarily went upon defendant’s track at a place of danger and exposed himself to peril from approaching trains, and that he had the intelligence to appreciate the dangers of the situation, and the discretion to avoid them, then plaintiff can not recover, and you will find for the defendant.” Railway v. Ryon, 70 Texas, 56; Railway v. Smith, 52 Texas, 178; Railway v. Chambers, 73 Texas, 296; Beach on Con. Neg., see. 202. 2. If the…
1Opinion of the Court
RAINEY, Associate Justice.
is an action for damages brought by appellee against appellant on account of the killing of Tim Christian, appellee’s son, a minor, by appellant’s train of cars. The petition alleged, that the killing was negligently, willfully, and wantonly done. Judgment was rendered by the trial court for appellee, from which this appeal is taken.
There are various errors assigned, all attacking the charge of the court, or the action of the court in refusing to give special charges asked by appellant. The first is for failing to give the following special charge requested by…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Galveston City Railroad v. HewittTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- McDonald v. International & Great Northern Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1893
- International & Great Northern Railway Co. v. GarciaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1890
- Evansich v. G., C. & S. F. R'y Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1882
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. BeckerIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hazel v. Hoopeston-Danville Motor Bus Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1923
- Anderson v. Great Northern Railway Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. KleeIndiana Supreme Court · 1900
- Sorrentino v. McNeillCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938
- Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. City of Eagle PassCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.