Court Opinion

ID: 9833512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:46:37.039664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:03.742608
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In his motion for rehearing appellee complains of the finding that in the conversation between Dr. Malloy and the train conductor, when the former approached and requested the latter to “give him three minutes to put a sick man on,” the conductor asked Dr. Malloy if the patient had a doctor’s certificate, to which the doctor replied, “No, I will get the tickets,” and that this colloquy was then repeated.
*333"We have- concluded' that when the testimony is construed most strongly in favor of appellee, as it should be on appeal, and when the testimony in favor of appellee is given full verity, as also must be done, we are perhaps going too far in saying that the foregoing colloquy occurred. So, we will eliminate that finding from the case. The effect of this elimination, however, is negligible, and does not affect the disposition of the appeal. .The undisputed record still shows, conclusively, that the conductor was not apprised of the fact that appellee was accompanied by a physician, or that a doctor’s certificate could or would be promptly furnished. He knew none of these facts, and had no reason to surmise their existence, and under the circumstances would naturally assume that if • they existed appellee or his attendants would have been quick and certain to apprise him thereof, and offer to promptly furnish the certificate. Appellee was seeking a special indulgence of.the carrier, and it was his duty and that of his agents to apprise the carrier’s agents of his true situation and purpose, and if he was in a position to promptly furnish the required certificate and release, or to prepare and furnish them after boarding the train, he should have so apprised the conductor. The burden was not on the conductor to inquire into the existence of these facts, which he had no reason to anticipate, and which rested peculiarly, within the knowledge of appellee and his agents. Ry. v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.) 125 S. W. 628. As was said by Justice Hodges in the case cited:
“While the general duty of holding trains at stations a reasonably sufficient time to allow passengers to get on in safety must be observed without regard to a knowledge on the part of the .trainmen as to who- may be intending to take passage, .we do not think that rule should apply in favor of one who depends upon a special indulgence extended to him or his class, either expressly or by custom. In such cases the passenger should disclose his purpose, or his situation should be such as to reveal it without imposing upon the railway employés the burden of making inquiry to ascertain that purpose.”
The motion for rehearing is overruled.