Southwestern Tel. Tel. Co. v. Shirley

5 Citing cases

  1. Mississippi Ice Utilities Co. v. Pearce

    161 Miss. 252 (Miss. 1931)   Cited 72 times
    In Mississippi Ice & Utilities Co. v. Pearce, 161 Miss. 252, 134 So. 164, 167 (1931), the Court held that “[n]o witness, offered by either side, be he prince, potentate, physician, judge, or private citizen, is exempt from the right of fair cross-examination in this state.

    463; Chicago City R.R. Co. v. Hagenback, 228 Ill. 290, 81 N.E. 1014; Champlin v. Pawtucket Valley Ry. Co., 33 R.I. 572; Mo. K. Telephone Co., 231 Mo. 417, 132 S.W. 712; Murphy v. Pacific Tel. Tel. Co., 124 P. 114; Hill v. Union Elec. Light P. Co., 169 S.W. 345; Freeman v. Cleary, 136 S.W. 521; Chicago G.T.R. Co. v. Spurney, 97 Ill. App. 570; 197 Ill. 471; Greer v. Great Northern R. Co., 132 N.W. 6; Walters v. Chicago, M. P.S.R. Co., 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 702; Mo. K. T.R. Co. v. Lee, 119 S.W. 144; Orbann v. Phila. Traction Co., 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 39; St. Louis S.F. Ry. Co. v. Coy, 168 S.W. 1106; Chicago B. Q.R. Co. v. Dunn, 106 Ill. App.? 195; Smith v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 92 App. Div. 213, 86 N.Y.S. 1087; Elgin v. Nofs, 212 Ill. 20, 72 N.E. 43; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Snell, 106 S.W. 170; Mo. K. T.R. Co. v. Farris, 120 S.W. 535; Morgan v. So. Pac. R.R. Co. (Calif.), 30 P. 601; Shaw v. Chicago, R.I. P.R. Co., 173 Ill. App. 107; San Antonio Traction Co. v. Probandt, 125 S.W. 931; S.W. Tel. Tel. Co. v. Shireley, 155 S.W. 663; Standard Oil Co. v. Tierney, 96 Ky. 89, 27 S.W. 983; Decatur Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Belew (Tex.), 178 S.W. 607; James v. Oakland Traction Co., 103 P. 1082; Tierney v. Sampsell, 172 Ill. App. 119; Lutzer v. St. Paul Table Co., 121 Minn. 254, 141 N.W. 115; Graseth v. Northwestern Knitting Co., 128 Minn. 245, 150 N.W. 804; Geotzke v. Chicago, 174 Ill. App. 446; Kanz v. J. Niels Lumber Co., 131 N.W. 643; Anderson v. Foley Bros., 124 N.W. 987; Herbert v. Kingston Lumber Co., 52 So. 1021; Lynch v. Southern P. Co., 140 P. 298; Richardson v. Spokane, 122 P. 330; Lake Shore M.S. Co. v. Topliff, 18 Ohio C.C. 709; Wagner v. Chicago A.R. Co., 180 Ill. App. 196; Pittsburg, C.C. St. L.R. Co. v. Banfill, 69 N.E. 499; Chicago v. Lesthe, 32 N.E. 428; Illinois C.R. Co. v. Cheek, 53 N.E. 641. Argued orally by W.L. Guice and W.H. Watkins, for appellant, and by S.C. Mize, for appellee.

  2. San Angelo Water, Light Power v. Baugh

    270 S.W. 1101 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925)   Cited 20 times

    The fact that appellants generated and conducted 22,000 volts of electricity from San Angelo to Miles, that it escaped in such a way as to produce an injury, and that the injury was actually caused from electricity in a place where the party injured had the right to be, would constitute a prima facie case of negligence, applying to res ipsa loquitur doctrine, unless the appellants showed that such condition was not the result of its negligence. 20 C.J. 381; Telephone Co. v. Shirley (Tex.Civ.App.) 155 S.W. 663. Appellee's prima facie case is further strengthened by the fact that the injury may have been caused by "induced electricity," caused by appellants negligently permitting swinging static wires to remain in such delapidated condition that the wind could blow them in contact with the high-power line, thereby furnishing opportunity for contact. Witnesses testified that they had seen this swinging static wire arc by contact caused by the wind blowing it close to the highpower line.

  3. Southwestern Tel. Tel. v. Sheppard

    189 S.W. 799 (Tex. Civ. App. 1916)   Cited 24 times
    Noting split among courts of civil appeals

    It alone is responsible for the issues going to the jury. Alamo Dressed Beef Co. v. Yeargan, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 92, 123 S.W. 721; Railway v Smith, 155 S.W. 363; Southwestern Tel. Tel. Co. v. Shirley, 155 S.W. 665; Gosch v. Vrana, 167 S.W. 760; Railway v. Flanders (Sup.) 179 S.W. 263. We conclude, however that the issues were properly submitted, and that the evidence sustained the finding of the jury that the screen fell on account of the negligence of appellant in not having it properly fastened, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury to appellee.

  4. Earl v. San Francisco Bridge Company

    31 Cal.App. 339 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)   Cited 3 times
    In Earl v. San Francisco Bridge Co. 31 Cal.App. 339, 160 P. 570, it is said: "It is not error for the court to state plaintiff's claim in the language of the complaint instead of using equivalent phraseology."

    The severity of the injury caused by electricity is a matter of general observation, and the courts have been quite liberal in upholding verdicts for large amounts in such cases. As illustrating this tendency of the courts, we may refer to the following cases cited by respondent: Tedford v. Los Angeles Electric Co., 134 Cal. 76, [54 L.R.A. 85, 66 P. 76]; Reeve v. Colusa Gas and Electric Co., 152 Cal. 99, [ 92 P. 89]; Southwestern Tel. Tel. Co. v. Shirley (Tex.), 155 S.W. 663; Hill v. Union Light and Power Co., 260 Mo. 43, [169 S.W. 345]; New Omaha Thompson-Houston Electric Light Co. v. Rombold, 68 Neb. 54, [93 N.W. 966, 97 N.W. 1030]; Goetzke v. City of Chicago, 174 Ill. App. 446. Some errors in the matter of instructions and rulings of the trial judge are claimed, but they seem to be without substantial merit.

  5. Decatur Cotton Seed Oil v. Belew

    178 S.W. 607 (Tex. Civ. App. 1915)   Cited 17 times

    Plaintiff was shown to have incurred and paid expenses of more than $1,000, including a surgeon's bill of $500, and sanitarium fees of $25 per week for 10 weeks, all of which was shown by the testimony of Dr. Johnson to be reasonable; also other doctor's bills and expenses. See St. L. S.W. Ry. Co. v. Waits, 164 S.W. 870; W. P. Oil Co. v. Snell, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 413, 106 S.W. 170; G., C. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Shelton, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 72, 69 S.W. 653; S.W. Tel. Co. v. Shirley, 155 S.W. 664; T. N. O. Ry. Co. v. Kelly, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 21, 80 S.W. 1073; T. F. Lumber Co. v. Thomas, 147 S.W. 296; G., H. S. A. Ry. Co. v. Hanson, 125 S.W. 64; T. B. V. Ry. Co. v. Geary, 169 S.W. 202. It is ordered that all assignments of error be overruled and the judgment affirmed.