Case Name: Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company v. R. G. Prater
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1907-05-22
Citations: 46 Tex. Civ. App. 474
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company v. R. G. Prater.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Civil Appeals Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 474–475

Head Matter:
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company v. R. G. Prater.
Decided May 22, 1907.
1. —Carrier—Unloading Stock.
A carrier is liable for injury to an animal in taking it from the car, though it was unloaded by the shipper himself, where the injury was caused by requiring it to be unloaded at depot platform not adapted to the purpose.
2. —Evidence—Opinion as to Market Value.
A witness may qualify himself to give an opinion as to market value of a race horse at the place of destination of shipment though he had never seen a sale of stock there.
Appeal from Rhe County Court of Brown County.
Tried below before Hon. I. J. Rice, Special Judge.
J. W. Terry '& A. H. Culwell, for appellant.
Wilhinson & Lee, for appellee,

Opinion:
KEY, Associate Justice.
R. C. Prater shipped a race horse from Brownwood to Coleman, Texas, in a car furnished and transported by the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company. According to testimony submitted by Prater, the animal was injured while being unloaded at Coleman, and he sued the railway company and recovered $200.
The company has appealed and presented the case in this court on several assignments of error, all of which, after due consideration, are overruled.
The testimony offered by the plaintiff was sufficient to show that the defendant was guilty of negligence in requiring the animal to be unloaded upon the platform at the freight depot. The plaintiff's witness testified that there was not room for the horse to get from the car to the platform without turning sideways, and in doing so, one hind foot slipped down, thereby skinning the leg up to the stifle joint. The witness testified that the defendant's agent directed him to unload the animal at that place, and assisted him in doing so. The evidence referred to supports the finding of negligence against the defendant.
We are also of opinion that the plaintiff and his other witness qualified themselves to testify as to market value.
.Ho error has been shown and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.