Richey v. Southern R. Co.
Decision Date | 24 June 1904 |
Parties | RICHEY v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al. [a1] |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Abbeville County Dantgler, Judge.
Action by R. A. Richey against the Southern Railway Company, the Columbia & Greenville Railway Company, and Les Moore. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
T. P Cothran, for appellants. Wm. N. Graydon, for respondent.
This is an action for damages on account of injuries sustained through the alleged negligence of the defendants. The jury rendered a verdict against the defendants for $12,500.
As some of the questions presented by the exceptions arise under the pleadings, it is deemed advisable to set out certain parts of them. The first, second, and third paragraphs of the complaint contain merely formal allegations, and the fourth paragraph alleges that the defendant Les Moore was a conductor in charge of the train of cars at the time hereinafter mentioned. The other allegations thereof are as follows:
The defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint, and alleged that the injury was caused by the plaintiff's negligence.
In considering the questions raised by the exceptions, we will follow the arrangement adopted by the appellant's attorney in his argument. We will first dispose of those numbered 1 and 2, which are as follows: By reference to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the complaint, it will be seen that plaintiff not only alleges negligence on the part of Les Moore, the conductor, but likewise on the part of the Southern Railway Company. This disposes of both the said questions.
The third question argued by the appellants' attorney is as follows: "(3) If the plaintiff could rely upon the negligence of Latimer, the brakeman, was Latimer's failure to set the switch the act of a fellow servant, or a breach of one of the master's nonassignable duties?" In the case of Coleman v. R. R., 25 S.C. 446, 60 Am. Rep. 516, it appeared that Coleman was a laborer on a material train of which Griffin was the conductor; that, after their day's work, the train was run to the station at Eastover, and, arriving there a little after sundown, the conductor, Griffin, had the switch turned so as to connect with a side track at that place, and ran the train on said side track in order to spend the night. The laborers remained in the shanty of the material train. About two hours thereafter, the regular passenger train, in passing, ran on the side track, and into collision with the material train, by which one man was killed and the plaintiff was injured. The negligence alleged was in allowing the switch to remain in connection with the turn-out, instead of the main line. In that case the court uses this language: The court then quotes with approval the following language from the case of Calvo v. R. R. Co., to wit: Proceeding in the Coleman Case, just mentioned, the court says: Also, Reed v. R. R., 37 S.C. 42, 16 S.E. 289; Gunter v. Graniteville Mfg. Co., 18 S.C. 262, 44 Am. Rep. 573; Lasure v. Graniteville Mfg. Co., 18 S.C. 282.
Upon the request of the appellants' attorney, permission was granted to review the case of Coleman v. R. R., 25 S.C. 446, 60 Am. Rep. 516. The authorities upon the question of fellow servants are numerous and conflicting. The difficulty arises in the application of general and well-settled principles to the particular case under consideration. In transporting passengers and freight, a railroad company is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
James v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
... ... misleading; (2) the request must be responsive to some issue ... made by the pleadings ( Richey v. Ry., 69 S.C. 387, ... 48 S.E. 285); and (3) there must be some foundation in the ... testimony ( Hicks v. Ry., 63 S.C. 559, 41 S.E. 753) ... corporation is liable for slander under the same ... circumstances as would make it liable for any other tort ... Hypes v. Southern Railway, 82 S.C. 315, 64 S.E. 395, ... 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 873, 17 Ann. Cas. 620; Courtney v ... Express Co., 120 S.C. 514, 113 S.E. 332, 24 A ... ...
-
Grainger v. Greenville, S. & A. R. Co.
... ... 399, 19 S.E. 725; Farley v. Charleston Basket & Veneer Co., 51 S.C. 222, 28 S.E. 193, 401; Hicks v ... Railway, 63 S.C. 559, 41 S.E. 753; Richey v ... Railway, 69 S.C. 387, 48 S.E. 285; Willis v ... Cherokee Falls Mfg. Co., 72 S.C. 126, 51 S.E. 538; ... Green v. Railway, 72 S.C. 398, 52 ... ...
-
McDowell v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... danger, arising from the wire which was concealed, is a ... matter of defense, and is no part of plaintiff's cause of ... action. Branch v. Railway, 35 S.C. 405, 14 S.E. 808; ... Hicks v. Railway, 63 S.C. 559, 41 S.E. 753; ... Richey v. Railway, 69 S.C. 387, 48 S.E. 285; ... Willis v. Manufacturing Co., 72 S.C. 126, 51 S.E ... 538; Grainger v. Railway, 101 S.C. 73, 85 S.E. 231; ... Prince v. Massasoit Co., 107 S.C. 387, 93 S.E. 2; ... Rikard v. Middleburg Mills, 101 S.E. 643. None of ... the cases cited by the ... ...
-
Trimmier v. Atlantic & C.A.L. Ry. Co.
... ... the part of the defendant in failing to keep the switch in ... proper position, then the defendant became liable for such ... injury. Richey v. Railway, 69 S.C. 387, 48 S.E. 285 ... [81 S.C. 211] The appellant's attorneys in their argument ... say: "The death of Allison was caused by ... ...