The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-05-26
THE SUPREME COU RI
THE DECISION IN THE "rrRN-
TABLE CASES" REVERSED.
Railroad Not Compelled To Keep Its
Right of Why In t"nufii"h I"
Prevent Injury IL Trc>pnSscrs'

Austin. Texas. May 2l.--Followins is the
synopsis Of an opinion delivered by the
supreme court today
M DOBBfNS Va MISSOURI, KANSAS
AND TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANA'
suit to recover damages OF the 'atiWiy
company for negltsentiy causing INC
death of plaintiff -year-oll child, from
Dallas county. Fifth distrlct-ReN9rscd
and rendered for defendant below
ny the construction Of an embankment
FOR It's roadbed across natural drain ard
hy it's failure to construct the necessary
sluioes and drains in this enhancement the
company caused a deep pool Of water 10 ae-
cumuiate on its right Of NAY near Its de-
rot grounds in a thickly settled neis'oor-
hood, a path Leading from The depot
building to the store and posioftice OF ire
village passed near this pool The 'IiId
of plaintiff, escaping without negligence
90 the latter's part, frli into the pooi ahd
was drowned. There was evidence itnm
which the jury could have found that me
pool was attractive and dangerous 10 niue
children. that such children, lnclhalns We
ceased had before often played aronni
same; that no precautions were taken ny
the company 10 prevent such childreh
from getting Into 1t that the company was,
some time before the accident informed
Of such facts aud requested by rlainuH
to romova tho pool which was not done,
There vas a verdict and judgment for
plaintiff IN the trial court, and this JUDI
mont was reversed and remapdcd by me
court Of clvil appeals on the ground That
n verdict should have been instructed Tor
defendant. In order TO show jurisdiction
| in this court It is alleged IN he petition Tor
writ of error that the decision of the
! tail lie
/ the case"
| The common law imposes no duty uloh
the owner to use caro- to keep his uroperty
| In such condition hat persons going ihore-
on without his invitation may not be m
| jured In considering the question 's 10
whether duty exists there is NJ dtStinc-
| tion between a case where an intaut Is m
1 iured and one where the injury T. to an
| adult though where the duty is imposed
the law may exact more vigilance IN IT'S
| discharge as to The former. II there he no
duty the question OF negligence Is not
reached for negligence can in law only he
! preacatcd upon a failure 20 use the ueFrc-
1 Of care required Of one by law In the dis
charge OF a duty imposed thereby. Since
| the law imposes NO duty on the rnnd - use
care To keen its right Of way In such condi-
! tiou that persons going thereon withou. It's
invitation may not he injured, and since
there is no evidence OF an invita- ion b. tho
| company to he child II was no mo"e liable
| In law for its death than would have heen
a noighbor had 1t wandered into his unn-
closed land and been drowned In his tank
or creek, or been killed by falling down
his precipice.
We are aware that the cases known as
the "turntable eases" assert a contrary
doctrine, bat do not think they are based
upon sound principle.
We do NOT wish 10 be understood as hold
ing that one is not ieble for injuries to
persons going onto his land uninvited when
such injuries arc Intentionally inflicted.
Article il3G, Revised Statutes, which re-
lQuirNs railway companies TO construct
sluiccs and culyeris rendered necessary by
thr construction Of their roadheds has no
application TO this case. because II was In
tended merely for the protection Of ad-
Joining property against overflow.
There Is no proof that the child was r,
tho time ~ the accident attempting tn
travel the path which passed near the pool,
and IT is shown that this was not a public
rond. but merely for the use Of persons
going TO or from the platform on business
connected with the company
opinion by Denmau. J,