findings fense of Wallace B. Rew. We believe family purposes sustained as to car for his own issues were was no error herein him the no sense for his car at the W. W. Rew. trary error, was guest pleasure, cedes the facts over most Abercrombie, those eases the cars at the time of the liable pleasure. that in owner’s business of the owner of peals, an own pleasure, pleasure father material. tratrix, v. Frank L. Administrator, by implied gence purchased minor child pursuance of the child’s own business or relationship, for the torts of his minor Ala. 87, child for that agent performing reason We have Appellees’ [2] We hаve L. R. A. by appellee, automobile for held the N. engaged, the father’s pleasure, others, supports appellee’s position. son, to instruct E. liable so he was often years permission cannot rely, a minor son in without or held Phoebe 60 South. facts show time, doing injury for the examined Ann. (N. operation by family, examined duty properly submitted, committed and their own brief and operating father’s and do not for his torts. verdict of the capable driver, L. A. charges permission Nor is he matter, simply for his own purposes, S.) Wallace he is it was the age; Cas. Wash. A. Van or uses. the New his service. Nor is he liable his father’s above agent negligently discharge permission, he use-of a verdict Cunningham Wilson, especially as for the regarded Dodgson, are overruled. though use of the 1918E, 1127, all really carrying trial court as to W. W. express of the court submitted 1917F, Wallace B. Rew the authorities permitted driving his replies stated. using so as to render Alabama, liable a minor for B. find that Blaricom, of the father not related to York Court of giving using L. R. machine family, of some pleasure, Rew, Upon furnishing such family solely, (cid:127) that of Birch v. when with the child, argument because knowledge, caused the car for his family. does authority, an pleasure as to the de- for family A. his father’s them. The to use the automobile, held that a Pac. and as to appellant, N. Y. it, the facts HINES WALKER which he not make (N. business, Adminis but con or adult for father’s out the Parker, owning and in or of that theory seems relied fully negli- S.) con- 4. own Ap (225 5.W.) im- al p. *1 y. throughout its entire bility the accident it locomotive 5. Master and servant prejudicial ceive is bility death of a fireman Act dent’s of a bly expect support usual facts during minority, through strict able under port S. legal duty ment is in all pended, Rew is that he recover all 1. Death (Court supported constitutes viewable without other defects in railroad ployé’s promotion admissible. dicial. instruction on efits eral appearеd port HINES, Appeal and error Death law. proof, Death Comp. engineer July 2, A In an action under Comp. In action under federal Under federal When a child reaches its (U. fireman, expected during minority appellees Act Act the federal Employers’ Liability action deceased’s admissible. of Civil reversed, they might but as to Wallace B. <©=>95(3) it cannot be defects <@=67 Probability <@=58(2) St. On (U. St. 1920. On Motion for defects presumed. error, Director General of Comp. (U. the track was WALKER. engineer, showing occurred, continued so’as to parent’s §§ for death of- Motion §§ chance of things Nov. take 8657-8665), damages unless Comp. at other 8657-8665) where it was Employers’ Liability Employers’ St. —Adult —Child’s who had in a the federal Comp. benefits that that child 20, 1920.) nothing was not death. length. §§ <@=719(9) costs presumed <@=1064(1) <@=270(9) federal affirmed. fundamenta! ceases, and, (No. 9354.) 8657-8665), spur track, admitting of Texas. Ft. Worth. Rehearing. being again employed Employers’ Liability are restricted to the expected St. §§ child’s loss points locomotive fireman Act previously reaching majority. §§ in' majority, parent’s death Liability limits erroneous for Employers’ Employers’ of railroad as is made justify 8657-8665) of error. might —Verdict Rew iimited same condition showing not dear —Evidence that such Railroads, here rendered admissible. Rehearing, —Too 8657-8665), than held did not re- authorized behalf to receive in absence under him, then re- reasona- acted recover- Act Act to ben- thereof where preju- broad dece- judg- Lia Lia- sup- sup- fed- em- un- un- (U. (U. ex- topic Key-Numbered Digests cases see same
<S=For
and KEY-NUMBERin all
and Indexes
*2
(Tex,
damages
From
minor
alike.
share and share
awarded
which
deceased’s
pleadings,
benefits,
appealed.
defendant has
evidence,
supported by
fun
constitutes
predicated
Plaintiff’s
suit was
considered,
may
al
which
damental
though
question
by
contention that
the accident was
presented
of
spur
a defective
track,
unsafe condition
and
complain
that there
of
and did
guilty of
and that
defendant
suppоrting
verdict.
was no evidence
maintaining
in that
the track
dissenting.
J.,
Buck,
proxi-
condition,
which
mate cause of the
Walker.
death of H. N.
Coun-
District
Callahan
spe-
jury on
The case was submitted to the
Judge.
ty ; Harry
King,
Tom
issues,
cial
charge
of which
answer to one
Walker,
plaintiff
by
by
negligence,
administra-
Nora
Action Mrs.
of
made
Hines,
trix, against
proximate
Gen-
Director
N.
Walker
D.
cause of the death of.H.
Judgment
plaintiff,
AValker,
is-
eral of Railroads.
and defendant
was sustained. Another
appeals.
Reversed and
sue
was as follows:
submitted
manded.
now,
money,
paid
of
will
“What amount
if
fairly
reasonably compensate
Weatherford,
Shropshire
Bankhead,
the surviv-
&
ing
widow and children
deceased
appellant.
for.
they respectively
loss
suffered
which
Johnson,
Hughes,
Tyler, and
&
Edwards
by
you
reason of his
This
death?
appellee.
Baird,
Black,
J.
by
aggregate
(cid:127)
stating
amount
answer
the
or
By ‘pe-
damages.
of
cuniary
compensated
such
DUNKLIN,
Rail-
& Pacific
Texas
J.
may
loss’
loss as
is meant such
way
operated
Company
maintained
this,
money.
answering
for in
long,
spur
yards
con-
which
track about 600
question, you
the fifth
take into consid-
the town
money
main line near
nected with its
Baird in Callahan
and other
eration the
contribution
county
pecuniary benefits,
may
any,
and extended
if
the evidence
which
surviving
chil-
show that
widow and
pit.
said
land over which
surface of thé
sand
received from
dren
after
to
suffered
reason
deceased would have
spur
consisted
track was constructed
if he had continued
thé time of his death
sand,
purpose
that track was
loose
estimating
live;
losses
and in
company
sand,
use
to haul
to enable the
the minor children of deceased
instances the
main
In some
track.
you may
into consid-
of his death
take
on a foun-
would be laid
cross-ties and rails
advice,
training,
nurture,
if
such
eration
sand,
excavat-
later
dation of
which
would
any,
that these chil-
the evidence
away,
track relaid
and hauled
dren
received from
would
clay
live,
clay
not of
beneath. As the
of his
if
time
continued
depth
surface,
you
any purpose
it would
cannot consider for
uniform
from the
grief
companionship
solace or
or loss of
happen
suf-
at one
sometimes
end of a rail would
cross-ties
surviving
fered
deceased’s
widow and
foundation,
chil-
clay
rest on a
dren,
and
any damages
them, by
death,
reason
or either
of his
At
sand.
rest on
while the other end would
places
you
them,
them,
cannot award
or either of
supported by
track was
where the
way
solace
or comfort for
sand,
run
unsаfe
foundation of
the death
deceased.”
day
heavy
Feb-
On the
trains over it.
25th
composed
ruary,
lo-
óf a
while a train
Before the
was submitted
operated
being
duly excepted
in-
cars was
comotive and several
defendant
objections
excep-
speed,
quoted,
spur
at a slow rate of
said
struction
over
way,
consequence
writing
gave
filed
broke and
tions
with
rails
objections
papers
wrecked,
so
train was
and H. N.
of the ease. One of the
of which the
Walker,
fireman,
was scalded to death
the instruction did not limit
made was
escaped
pipe
from the
connect-
amount of
to be awarded to
the
children
during minority
steam
engine.
ing
to losses
have sustained
the boiler and
(cid:127)
was instituted
Mrs. Nora
had not
This suit
deceased,
objection,
surviving
Walker,
court overruled that
wife
killed. The
instruction of-
administratrix of
husband,
estate of her deceased
refused
and also
fered
limitation of
children. Error
defendant,
her-
and for the use and benefit of
such
surviving wife,
mi-
to be awarded
his three
self as his
nor
tively,
to;
assigned
years,
children, aged 3,
respec-
has been
to both
and S
rulings.
reason
his those
against
undisputed
D.
show that at
Walker
The suit
facts
death.
engaged
Hines,
met his death
Director General of Railroads.
It was I-I. N. Walker
handling
Employer’s Li-
interstate
com-
under the federal
in the service
instituted
;
Employer’s
Comp.
8657-8665),
ability
(U.
petition
Liabil-
St.
merce hence the federal
Statute
§§
prescribes
allegations
ity
plaintiff’s
That act
controls
case.
contained
Act
company
railroad
ease the
suit.
in such a
sufficient to
Plaintiff
act effect
person
be liable
recovered
the sum “shall
employed by
apportioned
suffering
$20,000,
he is
such
while
commerce,
as follows:
or,
in case of the
One-half to
wife
carrier
per-
employee,
or her
deceased,
to his
and the other half
his three death of
-
HINES v. WALKER
(225 S.W.)
!
&
representative,
benefit of
To
of N.
for tlie
the same effect is the case
sonal
surviving
Anderson,
134 Tenn.
husband
widow or
none,
and,
1918C,
employee;
then
185 S.
Cas.
Ann.
if
L. R. A.
such
employee’s
none,
1917D,
and,
parents;
then
employee,
for of
Tennessee
construction
next of bin
*3
given
or
in whole
the federal
the statute of
the
or death
statute as our courts
such
in
officers, agents,
any
opinion,
part
of
of
In that
from the
this state.
carrier,
employees
quoted
approval
from
or
with
insufficiency,
any
Tiffany
by Wrongful Act,
or
reason of
defect
on Death
160:
§
ap-
engines,
negligence,
cars,
in its
due to its
“The
should be calcu-
the widow
works,
track, roadbed,
pliances, machinery,
joint lives. The
lated
of their
basis
equipment.”
boats,
S.U.
wharves or other
for the loss
to the minor children
By
Oomp.
minority.”
the recov-
support
§ 8657.
that statute
their
be confinedto
ery
ployee
iary
ing
em-
of a deceased
a
child
pecun-
expressly
limited to
several
in the course of that
Supreme
dur-
sustain
benefit which
child
of the United
decisions of the
minority.
enough
permit
a
It is
in
broad
States are
that
that
cited to show
requiring proof
val-
for such
aof
dam
benefits
the rule
ages
applied
have reasonable
ue which the child would
expectation
majority.-
in such
more strict
cases
with
receiving
his
after he reaches
in
In the cases
ness than
Norfolk
235
other courts.
some
Holbrook,
Ry.
Re-
4698 of the
Articles 4694 and
& Western
Co. v.
general
Texas,
Sup.
in
vised Statutes of
the same
U. S.
59
“surviving
terms,
husband, wife,
recovery by
Ry.
Kelly,
allow
in
U.
& O.
C.
parents”
Sup.
of an 485,
children and
L. A.
Ct.
the
employee
1917F, 367,
charges given by
whose death has resulted from
the trial
company.
it is
of a railroad
But
of the amount
courts contained the limitation
of
minors,
a familiar
that
rule of decisions of
state
which was insisted
an adult child will not be allowed to recover
defendant in
case.
cor
parent
unless
the death of his
so caused
in
rectness of such instructions
.for
questioned
can be
evidence that such child
shown
of those
noted was not
either
receiving
expectation
See, also, Richie,
a reasonable
Em
decisions.
Federal
parent support
pecuniary ployer’s
aid
Liability,
§
value, notwithstanding
proceed
the fact that
All the
seem
[1-3]
authorities
parent
time of
reach-
the death of
he had
theory
that a minor
recover
majority
parent
his
legal
and such
parent
such a
because the
is under
case
longer
legal liability
him obligation
minority,
render
Ry.
Bajligen
perform
obligation.
such aid.
thy,
I. & N.
Co. v. De
G.
that
that he will
829; St.
App. 108,
majority
Tex.
28 W.
But after a
legal
reaches
child
Ry.
Bishoр,
parent ceases,
14 Tex. Civ.
in the
proof
presumed
764; M.,
K.
v. absence of
it cannot be
& T.
support.
James,
App. 588,
continue such
If a child is
55 Tex. Civ.
he will
crippled
Mills,
perma
or has
O.
Co. v.
143 S. W.
suffered some other
T. & N.
fact,
Substantially,
interpretation
physical infirmity,
connec
the same
nent
parental
given by
proof of
tion with
attachment and
the federal statute
the United
ability
part
parent
Supreme
Ry. probable
G.,
Court in
& S. F.
States
beyond
McGinnis,
offspring
Ct. continue the
majority, might
age
perhaps support
L. Ed. 785. That suit was
wi
damages for the
benefit of herself and four chil
verdict for
loss of such
dow for the
daughter, support; but,'
proof
drеn,
whom was a
the absence of some
one of
married
proof
supported by
character,
her husband.
of that
or some other
who was
There
proof
reasonably
allegation
was neither
that Mrs. the child
beyond
Saunders,
daughter,
support of
the married
.need the
dependent upon
father,
period minority
way
some reasonable ex
nor that she
expectation
pectation
ben
had reasonable
any'
parent,
of the continuation of his
not think there would be
efits as the result
we do
recovery.
case,
In
the trial court
such a
life.
refused
basis for
present
proof
case,
instructiоn
there was' no
that no
be allowed in favor Mrs!
of the deceased were not in
could
that the children
condition,
physical
Saunders,
and no
Court reversed normal
reasonably
for the refusal
the re
character which
would war-
would have
instruction, notwithstanding
finding
quested
the fact rant
pecun-
terms,
court in
render them assistance of
the trial
continued to
present
suit,
iary
majority.
instructed the
valué after
done
only
instruction
to allow
the evidence Under the
jury may
suit,
beneficiaries had a
not have
showed the
reasonable ex
limited the dam-
pectation
ages
behalf of the
allowed in
minors to the
decedent
dеath had not
reasonable
occurred.
(Tex.
«40
Tex. Civ.
fused); M.,
usually
C.
Tex.
App. 51,