Court Opinion

ID: 9834477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:37:42.900041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:15.057667
License: Public Domain

On Appellants’ Motion for Eehearing.
Upon a further consideration of the questions raised in appellants’ brief, we are of the opinion that there was reversible error in some of the proceedings of the trial court. At least the other members of the. court *316are now of the opinion that the argument of counsel for plaintiff below, Mr. Shields, to wit, that, if the defendants could find the identical tickets sold to Proctor and his son, there was no reason why they could not have found, other tickets sold to other passengers on the train and have them testify, and that the reason they did not have them testify was because such passengers would not testify contrary to the testimony of W. T. Proctor, etc., was unwarranted and prejudicial to defendants’ rights. The defendants were informed, by reason of the suit filed, that the deceased and his son bought tickets at Strawn for Breckenridge, and it was much easier for them to identify the purchasers of these tickets than it was to identify the purchasers of tickets to other places, especially if these two tickets were the only tickets sold on that day for the train from Strawn to Breckenridge, even if they could have identified them at all. It was not incumbent on defendants to prove their innocence, but it was incumbent upon plaintiffs to prove their case.
Question No. 2, submitted to the jury, was:
“Did the agents and servants in charge of said car permit it to become cold?” To which the jury answered “yes.”
And then the court submitted the following interrogatories:
“If you have answered the preceding question yes, then answer the following question:
“Question No. 3: Was such servant or servants in charge of said car that permitted it to become cold guilty of negligence as that term is defined in the first paragraph of this charge? Answer yes or no. A. Tes.
“If you have answered question No. 1 yes, then you will answer the following, question:
“Question No. 4: Did the deceased, J. E. Proctor, contract or take cold on account of the cold condition of the car? Answer yes or no. A. Yes.
“If you have answered question No. 4 yes, then answer question No. 4a.
“Was the cold condition of the car, if it was, the proximate cause of the deceased contracting or taking cold? Answer.yes or no. A. Yes.
“Question No. 6: Did pneumonia set up as the proximate result of his taking cold in said car or coach? Answer yes or no. A. Yes.
“If you have answered question No. 1 yes, then answer the following question:
“Question No. 6: Was the power of resistance of the deceased so lowered or weakened by exposure to cold in the car as that pneumonia later proximately resulted, therefrom? Answer yes or no. A. Yes.”
It is urged that these issues are leading and suggestive to the jury of answers expected to be made in answer to them and invade 'the province of the jury in depriving them of the right to pass upon the issues of fact involved in the case. My associates are of the opinion that the assignment attacking the submission of these issues in the form given should be sustained. They have concluded that, by the form of the questions propounded in these issues, it is assumed that the car did become cold, which was a question upon which conflicting testimony was offered, and that at least as propounded the several questions indicated to the jury that, if they should answer each of them in the affirmative, they would be so answered as to justify a judgment for the plaintiffs. The writer, while he recognizes the fact that the form of the issues submitted were perhaps not happily worded, or free from criticism, and that they could have been submitted in a form free from such criticism, yet, inasmuch as the jury was instructed that they should answer question No. 3, if they had answered question No. 2 in the affirmative, and that they should answer No. 4, if they had answered question No. 1 in the affirmative, and they should answer question No. 4a, if they answered question No. 4 in the affirmative, the' writer believes that the issues 3, 4, and 4a, the answer to each depending on the affirmative answer to some preceding question, were not in a form which invaded the province of the jury. But the majority think otherwise.
 The trial court did submit a number of special issues tendered by defendants, and a number of instructions with reference to the issues involved in the case, but he failed to submit any one of several issues, tendered involving the question as to whether at the time the deceased arrived at Cisco, or at the time he got on the train at Strawn, he was in good health and strong. The defendants introduced several witnesses who testified to a state of facts tending to show that, for several days prior to the trip from Strawn to Breckenridge, the deceased was suffering from a severe cold. The issues submitted were perhaps not in such form as to elicit answers which would have been determinative of any material fact in the case, but at least they were suggestive to the court of the need of submitting an issue so determinative, or at least instructing the jury on the duty of railroad companies as to keeping their cars reasonably comfortable for persons in ordinary health. There are authorities supporting the rule that, unless a carrier receives a passenger with notice of his disability or sickness, the carrier in the exercise of due care is only required to keep its cars reasonably warm for persons in good health and strong. 10 C. J. pp. 961, 962, and Marcott v. Ry. Co., 147 Wis. 216, 133 N. W. 37. The case of M., K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Byrd, by the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 315, 89 S. W. 991, writ of error refused, is to the contrary. We believe that the fact that the deceased was suffering from a cold, or had influenza or pneumonia, all of which questions were tendered as issues and refused, would be material upon the issue as to whether he would *317have died therefrom, irrespective of the cold condition of the car, if it was cold. If upon another trial the evidence should justify the submission of this issue, the trial court may submit it.
For the reasons stated, the judgment heretofore rendered, except as to the judgment in favor of the receivers of the Te^as & Pacific Railway Company, is set aside, and the judgment below is reversed, and the cause remanded.
BUCK, J., dissenting in- part.