T.A. Falvey and Waters Davis, for plaintiffs in error. — The ruling of the Court of Appeals that the demurrers should have been sustained because the negligent obstruction of the street was not the proximate cause of the injuries was erroneous, for the reason that, in leaving cars near nightfall, without any prospect of their removal, so as to obstruct a much used street, a street that the inhabitants were compelled to use in order to get to their homes, defendant might have anticipated the intervening cause, viz., that people would try to drive around the obstruction rather than remain in the night away from their homes, and that in driving over its tracks, the condition of which it knew, accidents might result. Murphy v. Leggett (N.Y.), 58 N.E. Rep., 42; Kelley v. Town of Fond du Lac, 31 Wis. 186 ; Pomeroy v. Inhabitants of Westfield (Mass.), 28 N.E. Rep., 899; Tuttle v. Inhabitants of Holyoke, 72 Mass. 447 ; Linehen v. Western Electric Co., 51 N.Y. Supp., 1080; Skjeggerud v. Minneapolis S.L. Ry. (Minn.), 35 N.W. Rep., 573; International G.N. Ry. Co. v. Locke (Texas Civ. App.), 67 S.W. Rep., 1083; Gulf C. S.F. Ry. Co. v. Gasscamp, 69 Tex. 546 . On proposition that one is not a trespasser who, by the negligent blocking of the street by the railway, is compelled to go upon its tracks, see Mayer v. Chicago Alton Ry. Co., 63 Ill. App.?,? 309; Hudson v Wabash W. Ry. Co., 32 Mo. App., 667; Baltimore P. Ry. Co. v. Cumberland, 176 U.S. 232 . Edwards Edwards, for defendant in error. — The testimony on the trial showed that the obstruction of the street by the appellant's car was not the proximate cause of the injury. The testimony shows, that, if appellant was guilty of negligence in leaving its cars an unreasonable length of time across the street, appellees were guilty of contributory negligence causing and contributing to the injuries received by Mary Kelly by attempting, at the time and in the manner and under the circumstances, to drive across appellant's tracks outside of the street, around the end of the cars. De la Pena v. International G.N. Ry. Co., 74 S.W. Rep., 58; Sanchez v. San Antonio A.P. Ry. Co., 88 Tex. 119 ; Galveston H. S.A. Ry. Co. v. Ryon, 70 Tex. 58 ; Galveston H. S.A. Ry. Co. v. Ryon, 80 Tex. 60 ; Gulf C. S.F. Ry. Co. v. Shieder, 88 Tex. 152 ; Railway Co. v. Martin, 63 S.W. Rep., 1089; Texas P. Ry. Co. v. Bigham, 90 Tex. 227 , 38 S.W. Rep., 162; International G.N. Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 63 S.W. Rep., 1092; International G.N. Ry. Co. v. Ormond, 64 Tex. 485 ; Murray v. Railway, 73 Tex. 4 [ 73 Tex. 4 ]; Texas N.O. Ry. Co. v. Crowder, 63 Tex. 502 [ 63 Tex. 502 ]; Walker v. Herron, 22 Tex. 59 ; Sanchez v. San Antonio A.P. Ry. Co., 88 Tex. 119 [ 88 Tex. 119 ]; Dobbins v. Railway Co., 91 Tex. 62 .

Gaiftes.

Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published