Case Name: ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. BRYANT
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-06-26
Citations: 162 S.W. 400
Docket Number: 
Parties: ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. BRYANT.
Judges: HARPER, C. J., did not sit in this case.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 162
Pages: 400–405

Head Matter:
ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. BRYANT.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
June 26, 1913.
On Rehearing, Dec. 18, 1913.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1914.)
On Rehearing.
1. Appeal and Error (§ 743 ) — Questions Reviewable — Assignments oe Error — Rules oe Court.
An assignment of error, though not conforming to Courts of Civil Appeals rule 25 (142 S. W. xii) providing that an assignment must refer to the part of the motion for new trial in which the error is complained of, must be considered on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2999, 3011; Dec. Dig. § 743. ]
2. Master and Servant (§ 224 ) — Injury to Servant-Licensee.
Where a railroad company expressly authorized trainmen to ride on switch engines in going to and from their work, a brakeman attempting to board a switch engine to ride to his home after completing his run was not a mere licensee, and he did not act at his own risk.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 654; Dec. Dig. § 224. ]
3. Master and Servant (§ 217*) — Injury to Servant — Assumption oe Risk.
A brakeman, who knew of the existence ^nd general location of a switch stand near a railroad track, but who did not know that it would not clear a man riding on the side of an engine or car on the track, and whose attention had never been directed to the proximity of the stand to the track, was not, as a matter of law, chargeable with knowledge of the proximity, but the jury, in his action for injuries by being struck by the stand while attempting to board an engine, must determine whether he must necessarily have known of the dangerous proximity of the stand to the track.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 574-600; Dee. Dig. § 217. ]
4. Appeal and Error (§ 742 ) — Questions . Reviewable — Assignments oe Error —
Multieariousness.
Assignments submitted as propositions, and as such multifarious, will not be considered on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742. ]
5. Master and Servant (§ 217 ) — Injury to Servant — Assumption oe Risk.
Assumption of risk is not in all cases predicable from the employe’s knowledge of the conditions alone; an appreciation of the danger, as well as knowledge, being an essential element.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 5⅛-600; Dec. Dig. § 217. ]
6. Trial (§ 296 ) — Injury to Servant — Instructions — Misleading Instructions.
Where, in an action for injuries to a brakeman struck by a switch stand while attempting to mount a switch engine, the court charged that railroad companies were not insurers of the safety of their employes, and employfis assumed the risks ordinarily incident to the business and the risks which were open and visible to observation, but it could be presumed that the company would exercise ordinary care to keep the track reasonably safe, a further instruction that, if the danger from the position of the switch stand was one of the ordinary risks of the employment, or the brakeman knew of the position of the stand, or in the ordinary discharge of his duties he must necessarily have acquired the knowledge and appreciated the danger therefrom, he assumed the risk, and there could be no recovery, was not objectionable as placing too great a burden on the company because requiring that the knowledge of the brakeman must have been acquired while actually engaged in the discharge of his duties.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § 470; Dec. Dig. § 296. ]
7. Trial (§ 295 ) — Instructions — Construction.
The instructions must be considered as a whole in determining their correctness.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Dec. Dig. § 295. ]
8. Master and Servant (§ 268 ) — Injury to Servant — Evidence—Admissibility.
In an action for injury- to a brakeman struck by a switch stand while mounting a switch engine to ride to his home after completing his run, evidence of a bulletin of the company, which recited that engines would pick up crews, was admissible on the issue of his right to board the engine.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 910; Dec. Dig. § 268. ]
9. Appeal and Error (§ 1051 ) — Harmless Error — Erroneous Admission oe Evidence.
Any error in admitting evidence to prove a fact established by other evidence admitted without objection is not prejudicial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4161-4170; Dec. Dig. § 1051. ]
10. Appeal and Ebeob (§ 742 ) — Questions Review able — Assignments of Ebeob — Multifariousness.
The consideration on appeal of an assignment of error, which is submitted as a proposition which is multifarious, will be confined to the proposition subjoined thereto.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742. ]
11. Tbial (§ 194 ) — Instbuctions — Weight of Evidence.
An instruction consisting of abstract statements of the principles of law governing the case, and not affirmatively presenting to the jury the issues involved, is not objectionable as on the weight of the evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Dec. Dig. § 194. ]
12. Evidence (§ 513 ) — Injuey to Servant— Evidence — Admissibility.
In an action for injuries to a brakemañ struck by a switch stand while mounting a switch engine, the testimony of an experienced railroad man that he knew at what distance a switch should be placed from the rail to be reasonably safe, and that everything should clear the line six feet so as to protect employes, was admissible on the issue of negligence in placing the stand too close to the track.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2317, 2318; Dec. Dig. § 513. ]
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County ; Dan M. Jackson, Judge.
Action by J. C. Bryant against the Atchi-son, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed, and motion for rehearing overruled.
Turney & Burges, of El Paso, and Terry, Cavin & Mills, Jno. G. Gregg, and A. H. Cul-well, all of Galveston, for appellant. Patterson, Wallace & Gardner, of El Paso, for ap-pellee.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For otter cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HIGGINS, J.
This suit was instituted by J. C. Bryant against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of personal injuries inflicted upon him while in the employment of said company. Upon trial before a jury, verdict was rendered in his favor assessing his damages in the sum of $5,000, and judgment was rendered accordingly.
Rule 25 for the government of the Courts of Civil Appeals, as amended January 24, 1912 (142 S. W. xii), provides that an assignment of error must refer to that portion of the motion for a new trial in which the error is complained of. Since none of the assignments herein comply with this provision of the rule, they will not be considered.
In opinion rendered upon rehearing in El Paso Electric Railway Co. v. Lee, 157 S. W. 748, recently filed and not yet officially reported, we at length state our reasons for declining to consider assignments of error which do not comply with that provision of amended rule 25, which requires the same to refer to that portion of the motion for a new trial in which the error is complained of. We here now refer to this opinion as stating in full our reasons for declining to consider the assignments in this ease.
Affirmed.
HARPER, C. J., did not sit in this case.