Hale v. D.C. & G. R. Co

• Decision Date: 11 August 1891
• Citation: 13 S.E. 537,34 S.C. 292
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Hale v. Columbia & G. R. Co.

13 S.E. 537

34 S.C. 292

Hale

v.Columbia & G. R. Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 11, 1891.

Railroad Companies — Injuries to Persons on Track.

1. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for the negligent killing of plaintiff's decedent, it appeared that deceased was a jeweler, and often went to defendant's office to obtain the correct time; that it was not necessary for him to cross the track, but that on the day of the accident he went to see an engine which was being repaired on the side track, and while standing between the tracks (there being a space of about 10 to 15 feet between them) he was struck by the steps of a passing coach, and thrown under the wheels. The accident occurred in the yard while the switch-engine was shifting cars, and running at the rate of about 10 miles per hour. The yard was surrounded by public streets. No signals were given of the approaching train. Held, that the company was not liable.

3. Gen. St. S. C. § 1488, required railway corporations to ring a bell or sound a whistle at a distance of 500 yards from all public crossings. Section 1529 makes a railway corporation liable for injuries to persons resulting from collisions at such crossings for failure to give the signals, unless the person injured was guilty of gross negligence. Held, that one injured, while standing in the switch-yard of the railroad company, and not passing over a crossing, could not recover under the above statutes, though the yard was surrounded by streets, and the required signals were not given by the company. Following Neely v. Railroad Co., 11 S. E. Rep. 636.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Greenville county; Aldrich, Judge.

Action by William R. Hale, administrator of B. Werle, deceased, against the Columbia & Greenville Railroad Company, to recover damages for the negligent killing of plaintiff's decedent. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Westmoreland & Haynsworth, for appellant.

Wells & Orr and J. S. Cotbran, for respondent.

McIver, J. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as administrator of Berthold Werle. deceased, against the defendant company, to recover damages for the killing of the deceased by the alleged negligence of the defendant company in moving its train, for the benefit of the wife of the deceased. The plaintiff offered testimony tending to show that the deceased was a watch-repairer, living in the city of Greenville, and was accustomed to go to the telegraph office of the defendant company, which was located near the railroad track, on the side next the city, for the purpose of obtaining the correct time as transmitted daily from Washington, so that it was not necessary for the deceased to cross the track or go on it for the purpose of reaching the telegraph office; that, on the occasion when the unfortunate disaster occurred, the curiosity of deceased to see certain work which was being done on a freight-engine standing on the side track induced him to cross the side track, and, while standing between the side track and the main line, separated by a distance of some 10 or 15 feet, he was struck by the steps of a passenger-car, which "jutted out about six inches from the body of the coach, " whereby he was thrown under the wheels of the coach, and the whole train ran over his leg, crushing it to such an extent as to cause his death within the ensuing 24 hours; that this passenger-car was being pushed back by a shifting-engine used for the purpose, which was moving at a speed of about 10 miles an hour; that the accident occurred in the railroad yard, through and along which persons were accustomed to pass for their own convenience, though the whole yard was surrounded by public streets, and that those in charge of the shifting-engine gave no signal of their approach, either by ringing the bell or blowing the whistle, or otherwise, and that no person was at the rear of the backing train as a lookout; that, when the deceased was struck, the engineer of the freight engine shouted to the engineer of the shifting-engine, and the deceased cried out in distress three times, but the moving train was not stopped until after it had passed over the leg of deceased. At the close of the testimony adduced by the plaintiff the defendant made a motion for a nonsuit, which was granted upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence tending to show negligence upon the part of the defendant company, or of its agents or servants; and, judgment having been entered...