G., H. & S. A. R'y Co. v. Davidson

Citations

• 61 Tex. 204
• 2 Tex. L. R. 681
• 1884 Tex. LEXIS 74

Syllabus

<p>1. Damages — Railroad comp ant.— In a suit against a railway company for damages for injuries inflicted by the alleged negligence of the company’s servant in closing a car door on plaintiff’s Anger and crashing it, one of the controverted facts in the case was whether the plaintiff, when the injury was received, was attempting to enter one of the carriages of the train, or whether he was standing on the car platfprm with his hand negligently so placed as to be rendered liable to injury. Held, that a charge which in its language seemed to assume as a fact that the plaintiff’s finger was crushed when attempting to enter the car was error.</p> <p>3. Same. — The error-was not remedied by another charge, to the effect that unless the jury believed that the porter (the servant) knew that plaintiff’s finger was in such a position as that it would get crushed when he shut the door, and when the injury was inflicted, they could not find for the plaintiff,</p> <p>8. Negligence.— In this case it was error to give a charge which in effect asserted that it was negligence for a porter on a railway train to close the doors of the company’s cars without giving warning of his intention to do so in advance.</p> <p>4. Distinguished.— This case distinguished from Fordham v. The T. B. & S. C. R. Co., 32 Vic., 1868, 1869, which is reviewed in the opinion.</p>