Austin Elec. Ry. Co. v. Lane

2 Citing cases

  1. Santis v. St. L. S.W. Ry. Co. of Texas

    59 Tex. Civ. App. 405 (Tex. Civ. App. 1910)

    Upon this state of facts we do not believe that reasonable room exists for difference of opinion among fair-minded persons upon the proposition that the plaintiff, on the occasion in question, failed to exercise such care for his own safety as persons of ordinary prudence would have exercised, under the same or similar circumstances. (Dayton Lumber Co. v. Stockdale, 54 Texas Civ. App. 611[ 54 Tex. Civ. App. 611], 118 S.W. 805; Austin Electric Railway Co. v. Lane, 55 Texas Civ. App. 577[ 55 Tex. Civ. App. 577], 120 S.W. 1011.) No error has been shown and the judgment is affirmed.

  2. Ferrell v. Beaumont Traction Co.

    207 S.W. 654 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919)   Cited 2 times

    The rule, according to our understanding, is that, to constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law, the acts of the person, as constituting such negligence, must be such as to allow but one inference to be drawn therefrom by ordinary minds, or his acts must be in violation of law, such as a statute or a city ordinance. Appellee insists that this case comes within the rule announced in Edwards v. Railway, 100 Tex. 23, 93 S.W. 106, and in Railway Co. v. Lane, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 577, 120 S.W. 1011. We think the facts and circumstances surrounding this case are quite dissimilar to those in the cases cited, and is easily distinguishable from them.