Case ID: sw_184/html/0180-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PHILLIPS, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. CASSADY et al.
    (App. No. 9380.)
    (Supreme Court of Texas.
    March 29, 1916.)
    Master and Servant <@=>265(5) — Injuries to Servano-Negligence — Proof by Circumstances.
    The circumstances of an accident to an em-ployé may themselves furnish proof of the employer’s negligence.
    [Eel. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent Dig. §§ 8S1, 898, 955; Dec. Dig. <©=>265(5).]
    Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Second Supreme Judicial District.
    Action by Emma A. Cassady and others against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed the judgment. 175 S. W. 796. To review its judgment, defendant petitions for writ of error.
    Writ refused.
    C. C. Huff, A. H. McKnight and J. M. Chambers, all of Dallas, and Garnett & Gar-nett, of Gainesville, for plaintiff in error. Stuart, Bell & Moore, of Gainesville, for defendants in error.
   PHILLIPS, C. J.

We deem it proper to say that we do not subscribe to the statement in the opinion of the honorable Court of Civil Appeals that it is a general holding of this court that the doctrine of res ipsa loqui-tur applies, as a rule, in cases of injury sustained by a servant in the services of a master. McCray v. Railway Company, 89 Tex. 168, 34 S. W. 95, recognizes that in such cases the doctrine does not apply. We think the facts of the present case bring.it within the rule, equally announced in' McCray v. Railway Company, that the circumstances of a particular accident may themselves furnish proof of negligence; and it is for this reason that the writ of error is refused.