Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-05-28
CIVIL COURT OF APPEALS.



No lGn. Eddy and Cross receivers. ap'
pcllnis. " James W. sui, appellee Az
peni nom district court Of johnson county.
CONCLUSIONS OF FACE
on November LIST 1889. Mary Z. stu, tue
vile VI appellee, was a passenger On one
Of u,pplluuts trains guluE from HlllshorO
10 gfindylpw. Tile train arrived NJ trhhl-
View about 4 O'Clock In the morning Whlle
II was sin dark. N" verdict rslnplisncs
negligence on tue part ~ appSHahls VI hu1
hnVing ls depot and platform where pas
spngcrs were expected TO leave NE cars
properly lighted, and also 10 thllluB 70
stun no frHiu Oh the morning in question
Reasonable time TO enable The pAHschgefs
10 leave the sump Ia snfcty. lhe N'falet ALSO
establishes that appeu'e,s wife was NOT
guilty " contrihniorv negligence In leaving
fhp train at the time and Ia The manner
She did although II was thum IN Wouuri
there being sufficient evidence 10 sustain a
iIujiug int by starting the trhn while
SHE was on the steps IN the ACT Of leaving
with other pass 'ngcrs pressing behind her,
She was put to the election ~ elm ~ Jumping
ar falling ard she selected tile Least danger
ots tuursr The verdict Wsi establishes that
nppcilres wife 10y jumping from the moving
train Sprutucd nnc Of her ankles FOR which
the mry found dHnngr IN the sum uf Sl.iU
which. under the evidence, Is not eNcrs-
sive.
OPINION.
The court ala not err In submitting TO the
inry III, negligence ot appellants In failing
10 nrnylI,, proper lights for the HccOlnmodn-
lion OF their passengers In leaving the train
ns "A ground 81 recovery under The evidence
In This case Appellants ruutcnd that the
court erred IN summing th,S Issue , negansg s.,
LIGHTS Ia any way contributed toward caus-
lug the injury II Is trl' no wltaess tcst.
Hty tie injury would not have been received
hut several do testify that Mrs SIN was
forced 10 lump from The car steps TO tile
nlutforin Ia the dark while the train was In
mitinn aud In doing this her ankle was
-p'niurd. There are perhaps hut few ~ MS
| who have not az some time while walking
| ur luaplng In tile DARK have been disagree
ably surprised by strlking the Foundation
a little Ctrllrr or little later Than we "a.
| pertcd aud have fully realized that the dan
ger VI receiving iJurirs under such CIR
| cuustances Is much enhanced 10y not being
| provided with sufficient lights, aud Il was
! not necessary for witness TO tell the
| jury this The evidence does not show lust
| what cnus,l the Injury that Is. whether II
| was caused by lighting upon an uneven
| place IN the platform or only by the leap
Itself, hui In either casH we lhhk II Wus
! tile Il mn In the dark caused the CON s,urnccs
| 10 he more serious than they otherwise would
| have hcrn
| Appellnnta' second assignment OF errl,
| Is. "ihr court erred In us charge In sub
| uniting To til, Jury at all the question III
| drfrndnuts' liability for he wrongs com
| planned ~ bacuus ihHrc was NO evidence
| mnuner nor by tue negligent acts alleged
| Ia the petition Both plaiutin and hi
VIE TESTIFIED TIA, lne Injuries We're received
| iirahi i..stinrl that Mrs, stu Immediately
after the leap cumpltined of hnving hurt
her foot, a physician was called about !
thea h'ui.ed. swollen and sprained cundi
tiDn Of The nukle, 10 this state " the c,t
n'c We wog, got ,s 9S , au',iarize, TO disturb
complained " were received. That appel
lants were guilty of negligence IN not stup
| ming the trNlu a sufficient length " time
I ann Soil fritiifu uf untEf