Hamilton v. G. H. & S. A. R'y Co.

Citations

• 54 Tex. 556
• 1881 Tex. LEXIS 64

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence.—In a suit for damages against a railway company by a mother for killing her minor son, whilst in its employment as a brakeman, the court excluded her testimony to the effect that she remonstrated with the son about his acting as brakeman, and also her answer to a question asking her what she said on that subject. Held —</p> <p>1. The mother having already testified that she had not at any time consented to Iris employment, what she said to him would have been immaterial as to the fact of consent, and inadmissible to charge the company with notice of her objection, because not made in the presence or with the knowledge of any of its officers.</p> <p>2. If the issue had extended to her entire conduct during the employment, and the inference reasonably drawn therefrom, the fact of her remonstrance with the son, and the manner thereof, would have been proper as explanatory of her conduct.</p> <p>2. Contract with minor—Railway company.— A railway company contracted with a boy fifteen years old for his services as brakeman on its railway without the consent of the mother, his only living parent. Held —</p> <p>1. The employment was a wrong done the mother.</p> <p>2. Unless the boy had sufficient discretion to comprehend and guard against the dangers of the employment, when fully explained to him, as they should have been, the contract with him would not place him in the position of an employee or precluded a recovery for injuries suffered from the negligence of co-employees.</p> <p>3. Though a minor may be of sufficient age and discretion to justify his employment as a brakeman, whether he could be thus properly employed or not, is a question for the jury.</p> <p>3. Fact case.—See statement and opininion for facts which did not justify a charge of the court in regard to the employment of a minor as a brakeman on a railway.</p>