Case ID: tex-civ-app_36/html/0029-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "STEPHENS, Associate Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. R. C. Watts.
    Decided May 4, 1904.
    1. —Evidence—Effect of Personal Injury—Opinion.
    Where in an action for personal injuries plaintiff was asked, “To what extent do you think you are still injured in the way of strength and ability to work; how much are you at this time weakened or reduced in the way of strength and the doing of work, or the ability to work, as the result of these injuries?” his answer, “More than one-half, anyhow,” was not inadmissible as being an opinion.
    2. —Personal Injury—Verdict Not Excessive.
    A verdict for $1999 for personal injuries to a stout man earning $35 per month and hurt by being run over by a hand car, held not excessive.
    Appeal from the District Court of Parker. Tried below before Hon. J. W. Patterson.
    
      B. G. Bidwell and H. C. Shropshire, for appellant.
    
      J. C. Wilson and R. L. Stennis, for appellee.
   STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

Appellee was thrown from a hand car and injured. The verdict and judgment appealed from allowed him $1999, all the damages claimed. Exceptions to the amount of the verdict and to the admission of testimony bearing on that issue were the only exceptions reserved in the court below, and no other questions are raised in this court.

After describing minutely his injuries and giving their history and effect, appellee was asked the following question by his counsel: “To what extent do you think you are still injured in the way of strength and ability to work; how much are you at this time weakened or reduced in the way of strength and the doing of work, or the ability to do work, as the result of these injuries?” To which appellant objected because the question called for an opinion of the witness. The objection was overruled and appellee answered: “More than one-half, anyhow.” This ruling was warranted by the following authorities: International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Locke, 67 S. W. Rep., 1082, in which writ of error was refused; 68 S. W. Rep., 16; Chicago R. I. & T. Ry. Co. v. Long, 26 Texas Civ. App., 601, 65 S. W. Rep., 882, and cases there cited.

The verdict was not excessive. Appellee was but 26 years old, and was a stout man earning about $35 a month when he was run over by the hand car. He was rendered unconscious for some time, had to be carried to the hospital, suffered considerable pain, and was not able to work for three or four months, and has only been able to do light work since. One side of his head was cut and also the left ear. His arm was split open at the elbow and he was injured across the back, which he testified was “badly crushed.” According to his version, the injury in the back was the principal injury, from which he had not recovered at the time of the trial, more than a year after he was injured. The physicians who attended him in the railroad hospital were not called to rebut the case made by his testimony. We refer to appellee’s brief for a more detailed statement of his injuries and losses.

The judgment is affirmed.

Writ of error refused.

Affirmed.