Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Redeker

Citations

• 67 Tex. 181
• 2 S.W. 513
• 1886 Tex. LEXIS 634

Syllabus

<p>1. Railway Company.—Though a portion of a railway track has been but recently completed and is being operated only for construction purposes, the company is still bound to use all reasonable care to put the road bed in such condition that its employes engaged in running trains may use it with safety to themselves and to their co-employes.</p> <p>Evidence—Burden of Proof.—In a suit for damages alleged to have resulted from the negligence of defendant, if the plaintiff’s evidence .shows that the injury was caused by the negligence of defendant, and does not disclose any fact from which a want of care on plaintiff’s part might be inferred, then the burden of proof is on the defendant, if he relies on contributory negligence as a defense, to show that the plaintiff was guilty of such negligence.</p> <p>3. Pleading—Negligence.—In such a suit, the petition need not negative by distinct averments the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, unless the allegations made would show prima facie that he was negligent.</p> <p>4 Assignment on Error.—Attention again called by the opinion to the fact that assignments of error violative, in their preparation, of Buie 36 (47 Texas, 603), will not be considered on appeal.</p> <p>5. Negligence.—A brakeman on a railway train was ordered at night by the conductor to make a coupling on*a portion of the road bed which was completed, though operated for construction, purposes only. In doing so he stepped into a depression in the road track between the cross ties at a place which had not been filled up, and fell down; in pulling his foot out, the pilot of the engine ran over him, catching and crushing his foot and leg. The only fact shown to relieve the road from liability was that it was not open for general business of transportation. Held, that the road was liable for resulting damages.</p> <p>6. Excessive Vbkdict.—See statement of ease for facts under which it was held that a verdict for seven thousand two hundred and fifty dollors,