East Line & Red River Railroad v. Brinker

Citations

• 68 Tex. 500
• 3 S.W. 99
• 1886 Tex. LEXIS 431

Syllabus

<p>1. Pleading.—A plaintiff seeking to recover from a railway company damages for injuries sustained by him, on account of the alleged failure of the defendant company to keep in repair a good, safe, and substantial crossing over its road track, is not required to allege with specific particularity the character of the defects in such crossing. A general allegation in the petition of the insufficiency of the crossing, that it had not been properly prepared, fixed or kept in repair, and that it was rotten and otherwise defective and insufficient, puts the defendant in notice of the case be is required to meet.</p> <p>2. Case Dislinguished.—This case distinguished from Waldhim v. H. & S. R. R. Co., 2 American and English Railway Cases, 146.</p> <p>3. Pleading—Evidence.—In this ease the allegation that the crossing was rotten, was not in connection with the other averments, such a speeifieation as would preclude the plaintiff from showing the existence of other defects, either in the original construction of the road crossing, or which existed after it was repaired.</p> <p>4. Juror—Statute Construed.—It was not the intention of the statute (Rev. Stats., art. 3012), to disqualify as a juror any person who might happen to be subpcened as in a case, if he was not examined as a witness.</p>