Corpus Christi Ry. & Light Co. v. Baxter

MOURSUND, J.

Appellee sued appellant, alleging that while she was a passenger on the street railway operated by appellant, and while seated in one of the end seats of its street car, owing to appellant’s negligence in six respects, her right arm was struck by the door which folded inwardly, and was operated by the motorman; that as a result of the blow her hand and forearm were rendered useless and paralyzed, and she sustained great bodily injury, to her damage in the sum of $20,125. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for $3,000.

[1] Complaint is made because the court refused to strike out the testimony of Claude Baxter wherein he stated that Dr. Kaffie told him that Mrs. Baxter’s arm was paralyzed through the blow of the door of the street car. We see no ground for holding this testimony admissible. The evidence with respect to the issue whether the arm was injured by being struck by-the car door was of such character tnat it cannot be held the admission of the testimony was harmless.

It is contended that paragraph 4 of the charge is so drawn that it permits a recovery upon a finding of any one of several acts alleged to constitute negligence, regardless of whether such act was the proximate cause of any injury. In this connection it is urged that this is an affirmative error, which is not cured by other portions of the charge.

We conclude that, when paragraphs 3 and 5 are read in connection with paragraph 4, the jury could not have been misled, and that the charge as a whole is not subject to the. objections urged in the first assignment, and that such assignment should be overruled. We also conclude that what we ■have said applies to 'assignments 6 and 7, also complaining of the charge, and requires the overruling thereof.

[2] The court submitted as elements of damage expenses incurred for medical attendance and for medicines. The charge was objected to as to each item on the ground that there was no evidence that any expenses of either hind were reasonable. We conclude that, under the rule established by our decisions, such evidence is necessary, and that it cannot be inferred that expenses are reasonr able from the fact that the sums were exacted. M., K. & T. Ry. v. Bellew, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 264, 54 S. W. 1079; Wheeler v. Railway, 91 Tex. 356, 43 S. W. 876; Railway v. Rowell, 92 Tex. 147, 46 S. W. 630.

Assignments 3 and 4 are sustained.

There is no merit in the fifth assignment.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

null.

<gx=oFor other gases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes.