Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-01-14
coNcLrs1oNs or 30.

head of M bargags ear viii the TITO pas.
sfnfer coaches % IFS back w tllH position
The detlchcd COACHES moved upon him,
slflhng him ln ule back aud thus crushing
him between th' draWheads u the conchps,
CauaIug his serious Injury The plaintiff
was inexperienced ia THIS business as night
COR Inspector as detcnioni knew, 10 was
dangerous 90 work between coaches held
ly alr makes us DEF uluut ulsU know, though
piliutln dh not Printed rules and rrgmla-
tiun9 NJ The company prescribed that air
brakes must not be depended upon 20 hold
cars loft ut slutiong. aud these rules as
interpreted hy appellants agents ana wilt
uosscs. required that the plaintiff or G.. l..
limtro, should, iu the discharge " their
duties. hnvc applied hnud-hrakcs 10 the
detached c11chcs Had these hind brakes
been properly blocked. che accident would
not have occurred Plaintiff had been lu.
formed chat these rules nnl regulations
applied to g.. NJ Baker foreman Of the
company "a round house aud yards, Who bad
on the 10Th of October 1855. employed
him, IN this service as night Inspector for
q copy OF these rules and regulations
This application hc InHde ng many as thIfc
times during the course 0f his employment
the last application having been made only
a few nights before tile injury was inflicted
on him. Baker had failed 10 furnish him
ho rules. Had the defendant furni.hy d the
ulIiun with is rules and regulations he
would noi hNyc some between th'sc eolcheei,
hold urIr by DIR brake. alone. uld Would
consequently have avoided the Injuries,
CONCLUSIONS 0F LAW
The foregoing facts with reference TO the
experience 0f thc plllutu lul uf tiio re-
u4ul OF Baker to furnish llul with the rules
Uud regulations of tho company wcro sircn-
uuusly contested by the witnesses NJ the mp
pclluut m the court below, These facts
were however sworn 10 by the appellant
nlrl thr verdict OF the jury importing that
they believed him We fowl ConBtrdlupd Ia
adopt thcir evident conclusions.
aHsI Hf. .I IHHfIH s.H.H. -
error are first called IN our attention 10 the
appellants brief They complain alike az
rhu verdict " the jury as contrary TO Tie
law and to the cdloucc. They assert che
and tho pluiuilW were fellow servants, as
were hlsO tho swlichmcn WHO lcft the Two
passenger comedies ON The track. tlnt the in.
iurips INFLICTED upon appellee were due 10
Tho ucelIayuc, OK himself or OF bis fellow SER
want ACufr1, or the gwitrhmpu in falling
Go use hand brakes IN fastening the de-
tach u cOpches. lnh In relying exclusively.
lu Violation OF opppllnnts rules unon mir
brakes for the purpose Of holding these
cOpches Appelccs petition contains in of-
feet Two Cuunfs. lHi. That the injury In.
Mctcd upon him was due 20 ihe negligence
or me deicWnnt company IN folling 20 mp-
ply th detached coaches with sufficient afr
brakes. anl. lhnt the air brakes were.
~ focl. euilclpnt, anu " the movement OF
the detached cOuChos WgH I've 10 the failure
ot The switchnnn aud plaintiff himself and
MS cuplovc, Rpufrl tn got the hnnd brakes
or block The wheels. 10 brinv unsnfe 10 he
pend on Dir brakes "a hold the cOrches.
yot pluintin Us not chargcuhlp with such neg
ligrncc, and The defendant ls nevertheless
responsible 10 him because he was ineNpcI
cuccd iu the duties ut Uight ear Inspector
ana because Of his Ignorance ~ the rules
Of The detWdnnt company with reference
90 tue discharge Of hts duUps aud hegnuae
Of Tie failure uf dcfoudnnta furrmnn Ba-
ker. 20 furnish him with those rules as stat.
,-l In the conclusions of fact above set ONT,
In conformity with NIIIu HurnnI .tta. 4
With the evidence sustaining the nllaga-
lions thereof the court Instructed the Jury
ng follows:
"1hc court mstnicls You that lf Won he.
Hove from the evidence chat plaintiff en-.
tered Che service ~ defendant a. car m
.peetof ana rrplircr md that he was M
thut limo inexperienced and NOT acquainted
WIN furh huNlnes9 uud thai said business
| was attended with lntent duuvcrs such nd
| were moi known la the plaintiff AMI wore
not dscoyerahlc by the careful USE OF hls
senses, and that such latent dancers III
any, were not Known 20 the plWlntin, and
shall believe from the evidence thnt the
agent vi ueieadunt knew plaintiff was iu.
experienced aud pnacquuiutoh with tho bust.
! moss WllpfiOkrn by him ana thar with such
knowledge defendant failed To Inform plem.
um on such latent dangers II any such
there were and Of the rules aud rcguln.
nous oI uetrnl99nt controlling and govern
OF his duties, and shnll believe ne nppliad
20 the defendant agents by whom he had
hern employed for copy OF such rules
and regulations. and shnll holicve thot H.,
iu the DEFENDANTS agents by whom he MA
ttpnduts employer, whose dury il W1,s tn
furnish pluntin with rules unr regulations
tiiled ana neglected 60 furnish plantlif with
| lhe snmc whru required sO 10 DO ANA sbnii
| further believe thut plnintln was niyr',J
n,H1nse OF Nucu inilure as alleged I'M De.
ulMn, then you win hud for pmnun. %
LUIS NNatkn tmuO heq the law applicable
lo lhe pirndings Of the plaintiff rcferrrd
| 90 and Go the evidence sustaining mo sa,,,o
| lthtiNuN company go. Watts % Tavos
.oSi Railway company w. Callbreath m
We are therefore unable to srstotr o..
assignments of error referred TO- '"'
ma Us lotl md llth assienmcuts M or,,,
apt .,, Sompialns Of ne refusal of tie
respectively iu them Theas chgr. ~ out
W9ptriS refused rhoy euboliei 1,e o,,
ton of proger care I'm the sclccuop Ana nm,
| b"Eueld or heelro IN o servant by defan
lNhI ana neither the plealines nor 4 d
evidence raised such an Issue dIau,,,r
company W. Gilmore, ~ Texas. Hln "'
IN t9e lNlh assignment or error corplaint
y made that the court erred in ,ni,,ii NV.
Ia iis charge 10 the iurv be ,t VIZ
90 Mhemcr or not the aii brntee ,tto'i,si
~ "" Nit 'dlhllg the Injury wore defcp.
~ ~ eoutendcd ih0t utcro wns no
respect defective The cyldenec te,et.g
upon thls issue was m oar opiuign ~
utNhy meakte There were. h6wecer cir-
a w t""lN1NHH thnt the mir hrHko4
Wvir urocihc Nltso ctcumstances re,t
ISL nalhy IN tle fae thnt thev No., ,,,,
nihvtent % hold Inc detnrlsrd cars ,l,,,yi
w ,"H'I Wrfe on grnund apparently
| ieis! az nearly No. ana that the air hreis
uvpiik lNe haggoUe car on which ihs u.,,rt
N"a Nt'n5 done WIS Fnllccnt 10 k.,,, A.
HlNNNhaFF, While the evidence IN fftf -
wv ptFnphupfated, "a onr ouinion m fs,...
nt hppehNhG We are min bio io snv fhat Xxx
eeuhloay in behalf OF appellee y,ns ~
Naht As 10 lurtify tie court iu faiim,, -
t9elnll the issue. We are canarme,l In o,,,.
view As lo the correctness OF thls ~,
,uslHn from NE failure Of he appeiiauf ~
ttl.uH Wy i've verdict on this groiiud
appellants 18Th assignment Of orras :, ~
Also proQefly refused. n was eri,,ne,,, ~ y,
tiAl " Was pre-emuiDry order ~ ,fa
WteE ~ une Tor The defendant nnor ~
.Nn'Npts therein ngirpd Ignoring ~. ~
SUES arising ont of lhe allegaiioyrs "a j,
Hcuho eoA1l va the plNinllfs pofifior NN
thr htlif suocnl vhufge sci olif ~ 49,
| VtinNl illN assignment 81 errar ve,s ~
| pnittN refused becgrse Il omhoIies 49,
Nsve ~ lnfrcnsed lisl after fhe s,o,,'.
Att ~ ln pl9n3im Which Issne l1
Nsl Nt,set enc of the evidence IN tibs 49,
,Np...lasAs |tn assignment % crrnr c5ns.
NiAlls Ni Yc second rNruggaph "a M, ro,.e,s
inaghe whct we h3Yc aireadt a. .,,
1eiu4 Nltnqui support Ga the erileee, la
DIMENSIONS ~ taol found Nv ~ in,l,...
eAt Nc ea noi cpnepr with appellant ~
fll.A NnNtuuilOu Nt ~
lqe lesiiAony OF q. v Movers eos,,,.,..
y ~ '9pslquts eta assignment u ergoF