Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-01-26
COURT OF APPEALS
Full Text Of Decisions Rendered 10 The Fort
Worth District.

Worth District.
Court OF Civil Appeals First district u.
~. rarlton clret justice, u. q. Head anu
J. W. stevens, associate justices: W. J."
Hun. clrrk.
No -t Tho Towns and Pacific Railway
company. appellant W. j. L.. Davidson
uuu1ups. Apprul irom EasuuUl county
CONCLUSIONS OF FACT
on March n, iSSD. tho appellee j. =.
DIeiisUu, was n passenger un one OF APP
route" from Stluwn. Tex, to Washington
territory The train was passing @ switch
uul side truck about Sis mllos east ut ~
pasO. Tex. and the switch 90 thc west end
Of HE Side truck had been ucgllcpnuy LEFT
open. DO consequently on reaching the
switch running at the rate or thirty or
tuirty-Hvc miles per hour was dCruUcd
and wrecked. The coach In which appellee
pelcc was thrown back ngaMs the arm Of
lhe seat which ne had occupied the arm
striking him On tho "sunll of the buck' Oh
the lufi side Ot thC spleen, "nenr the back
home" ON Aug. j. 1850. ON account ~ this
injury. appellee brought this suit and on
June -, $500 recovered verdict and judg.
mcnt In the sum Of $1,000; hence this np-
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Appellants first assignment of error chol-
lcngpS the correctness Of the courts in
structiun In charging the jury that "thc
degree OF caro- rpquirol Of Defendant as q
passenger o. such as would ordinarily be-
exercised by persons Uf great care ana pru-
dclr' uuucr similar circumstances The
following rs the courts instruction upon
"Out law requires Of railway companies
high degree of cure 10 the management and
operation of their trains 10 prevent injury
90 their passengers The degree OF care
required is pronurtiouate 10 tho nature and
risks of the business and rs such as would
ordihnilly DC exercised by persons Of great
care ANA prudence under similar cryGm-
hlLltt@' me want ot such care cOusu-
tutcS negligence, We approve this charge.
Hallway companies, while not Insurers of
the safety Of their passengers are held
10 exercise the highest degree OF care re.
gardlug such safety. Giuilway Va. Burnett
80 ItAns, 536. Railway company w. Stuart.
decided by this court Oct. ~, 1902
appellant next complains that the court
oTel in charging the jury that defendant
company i8 responsible 10 the pluuUT for
the actual aud direct results OF the Injury
Instead Of charging hat he defendant
Us Euhle Tor injuries sustained which wore
the direct uul natural results of tbr nrgii-
gcnrc complained Of hy piunuH Tile chprre
on ili' subject wus as follows:
'Should am injury proNim0tcly result 80
passenger from the negligence OF "A rnll-
way company To- agents or emplayes, then
Huch company Is responsible IN damages Tor
The actual nnd direct results or such injury. "
we do not think this charge furnishes
GROUND for complaint. The proposition i'm.
NulyeI I'm appellants assignment seeks In
make a distinction between an injury ana
the results thereof Since the Clurnrtnr
ANA cNicut OF nm injury are fixed Inv rs
results. this distinction unDrpsses NJ az
fictitious and futile.
Appellants concluding assignment OF or.
rOr is rs follows:
"lhc court orrcd I'm chmglng ON tho mons.
We Of damages In that part of the chnrre
Wnl'h ltis the Jury that thcy muy com
s'utr l9e lhalntluS Impaired ability TO per.
FORM ms accustomed business
Ihcrc is mo- competent evidence which n,
| any way authorizes this part uf the charge
mo evidence ot permanent Injury The cy.
| noHrG suv" mat the business of the
| ln un hour Nfer the accident hp bprnnio
| unable 10 Wmk that no the time of tIe
| fi"i, more iNnh q year after the accident.
| the assistance OF cane. tbnf ho b,J
| not since the accident had day ANA ulrhf's
! rest from the pnln; that hc WINS unable Id
| 40 Hiy VOTE ana was threatened very Sc.
| uuilhg MS leg and thigh left arm md
| neck; that he mad been unable To ppI,foItn
any manual labor since receiving 'nIc I'm,
| lurles; that previous 10 these Injuries he
| huu made arrangements Tending 10 pnpngn.
| hchtS us a surveyor from which he rrp4on.
| AMY expected 10 realize SlUO por moinh,
lnn, nc hhu 10 abandon those arrange
| W'uFi ihN thereafter he had been offered
| SOD per month 10 oversee hands M n sg,v
| inlu but chat his health would moi neral,
MN TO engage even IN this business. NJ,
| thlnk thlE evidence was sufficient 10 higtify
| e submission 10y the court OF the Issue COM
plained OF. The physician. Dr. antony
who examined the plaIndn, testified a,
follows: "'
He, the plaintiff IS unable to walk with
ont a stick, and while / can NOT ion tbf
pcrmunuucy OF his Injuries, / think A ,gin
DE q long time before he RECEIVERS n IN
all ANA In my opinion his injuries are urob
ably permanent"
The fact that IN the opinion Of the pby
slci0n the injuries Of the uppcllce ,5~r,
probably permanent instead of WenEcrln,,
would as We think, tend TO strengthen th,
conclusion thar may be drawn from otb,
portions Ot the testimony thnt tbn Ii,ri,
| were actually permanent. ''''' ~
| The Judgment Is affirmed
lsisnedl IAkllu, Chiof Justice.