I. & G. N. R'y Co. v. Hester

Citations

• 64 Tex. 401

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence — Railways — Section hand. — A person accepting employment as a section hand assumes the risks ordinarily incident to such employment, and the railway company is not liable to him for injuries resulting from such assumed risks; but it is liable for injuries occasioned by superadded risk, resulting from the negligence of the company or its immediate representative, provided the injured party does not contribute to the injury by a failure to exercise such reasonable care as the occasion demands. (Following Wall v. T. & P. R’y Co., 4 Tex. L. Rev., 36; T. & P. R’y Co. v. Burns, 4 Tex. L. Rev., 54.) A section hand also assumes that he has the capacity to understand the nature and extent of the service, and the requisite ability to perform it. Following Watson v. H. & T. C. R’y Co., 58 Tex., 439.</p> <p>2. Fact case — Negligence.— See opinion for facts held not to constitute negligence on the part of the railway authorities.</p> <p>3. Same.— A company or its agents cannot be charged with negligence for sending a section gang out to work on its road on a foggy day. Though the state of the weather might add to the ordinary risk, still the service contracted to be performed was of such nature and importance as to embrace within its scope dark and cloudy as well as clear weather. If the injured party desired exemption from danger incident to changes in the weather, he should have contracted for it on entering the service. Following Watson v. H. & T. C. R’y Co., 58 Tex., 434.</p>