Court Opinion

ID: 9833960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:11:13.787213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:09.500918
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is insisted in the motion for a rehearing that the charge submitting the issue of negligence on the part of the appellant in permitting a road engine, equipped with a brilliant headlight, to stand in the yards at the time, if erroneous, was invited by certain special charges presented by the appellant. Upon further consideration we have concluded that this contention is correct. Some of the special charges requested and refused by the court embody in substance the same propositions of law, and call for a determination of the same issue of fact, as those involved in that portion of the charge which we held erroneous. This being true, the error should not cause a reversal of the judgment. Railway Co. v. Sein, 89 Tex. 65, 33 S. W. 215, 558.
In view of the disposition which we make of the case, it is proper that we should discuss some of the remaining assignments of error.
Upon the trial the defendant offered to prove by N. H. Ragland that the appellee had at one time been employed by the Paris & Mt. Pleasant Railroad Company, and had been allowed to resign from that service on account of his drinking while on and off duty. This testimony was excluded on objection. It appears from the bill of exception that appellee had been asked, upon cross-examination, if he had not been permitced to *103resign under the conditions mentioned, and he had answered that he had not. This testimony was evidently intended for the purpose of impeaching the appellee upon that issue. This was a collateral matter, and the court ruled correctly.
On his direct examination the appellee was asked this question: “Do you know whether there is any test required on the part of railroads as to the physical condition of their employ és?” An answer to this was objected to by appellant, on the ground that it was immaterial. The objection was overruled, and the appellee .ansivered, “You have to stand a physical examination by a doctor before yon can be employed.” There was no error in the ruling complained of. Other testimony offered by the appellee tended to show that his injuries were of a character that impaired his efficiency for railway service. The evidenpe objected to was material as tending to show the consequences of his impaired efficiency, and that, because of the fact that a physical examination is required, he probably would not thereafter be able to secure employment in the railway service. The fact that it was not shown that the appellant required any such test does not justify the exclusion of the proffered evidence.
The appellee was permitted to read to the jury portions of the deposition of Dr. Ax-tel, a physician, who examined the appellee at the instance of his counsel for the purpose of testifying as to the appellee’s physical condition. Dr. Axtel stated, in substance, that he had examined the appellee, and found that he had suffered Oolle’s fracture of the right wrist and a fracture involving the left elbow; that there was marked stiffness in the use of the elbow and of the left arm, and a weakness in the use of both hands. He had tested the left arm in different positions with reference to the use that could be made of it, and had also tested the appellee’s grip in both hands. Appellee’s strength or ability to grip with his hands was considerably impaired. He also found that there was some difficulty in the use of the joint of the elbow and of the left arm when an effort was made to raise it and straighten it. He gave it as his opinion that the appellee’s ability to perform the duties required of a switchman or brakeman in climbing up and down cars, operating brakes, and making couplings had been considerably impaired. He testified in detail regarding other physical conditions found to exist. This testimony was objected to upon the ground that it was self-serving and hearsay; that the answers showed that the opinion of the witness was based solely on what was told him by the plaintiff as to his physical condition. We do not think this objection tenable. It does not fall within the rule announced in the cases referred to. While some of the facts detailed by the witness may have been based upon what the appellee told, him, others were.not necessarily derived from that source. The objection was to all of this testimony. While some of it may have been subject to exclusion, clearly all of it was not.
We have carefully considered all of the remaining assignments of error,, and have found no ground for reversing the judgment.
The motion for a rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the district cofirt is affirmed.