Legal Opinion · Dissent

Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Evans

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1952No. A-3442Published

1DissentJustice Wilson

We respectfully dissent because this case should be rendered for the defendant and not remanded. As a matter of law the bursting of the air hose was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

The facts on proximate cause are uncontroverted. The bursting of an air hose released the air pressure in the brake system and automatically applied the brakes. This stopped the train and made necessary the replacemement of the defective hose by a new hose. Plaintiff was attempting to remove the defective hose when he got rust and dirt in his eye.

We are of the opinion that an injury sustained while…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Wilkerson v. McCarthySupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. O'Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  4. Coray v. Southern Pacific Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  5. Carter v. Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API