Anderson v. South Carolina & G.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 July 1907
• Parties: ANDERSON v. SOUTH CAROLINA & G. R. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

58 S.E. 149

77 S.C. 434

ANDERSON v. SOUTH CAROLINA & G. R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 27, 1907

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Aiken County.

Action by B. J. Anderson against the South Carolina & Georgia Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Hendersons for appellant.

Croft & Salley and Sawyer & Owens, for appellee.

JONES J.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment of $1,250 against defendant for alleged negligence in failing to supply sufficient coaches to accommodate the passengers on its train from Augusta, Ga., to Langley, S. C., on the afternoon of June 28 1902, in permitting white and colored passengers to ride in the same coach, in not having a sufficient force of employés upon the train, and in failing to protect plaintiff-a passenger-from violence on the part of a fellow passenger, as the result of which negligence plaintiff received a pistol shot wound in the leg, inflicted, without fault on his part by one of the negro passengers in the coach immediately in front of the car in which plaintiff was riding. This appeal questions the correctness of the charge to the jury.

The defendant requested the court to charge that if the injury complained of was caused by another passenger, and was so sudden and unexpected that the defendant's employés could not have foreseen and prevented it by the exercise of due care, then the defendant would not be liable. The court charged the request, except that the words "the highest degree of care" were substituted for the words "of due care." This modification of the request and the general charge that a railroad company must exercise the highest degree of care in the protection of passengers from injury or violence form the basis of the first and second exceptions. The charge as given correctly stated the law as to the degree of care to be exercised by carriers of passengers. Steele v. Southern Railway, 55 S.C. 393, 33 S.E. 509, 74 Am. St. Rep. 756; Latour v. Southern Railway, 71 S.C. 543, 51 S.E. 265; Franklin v. Railway Co., 4 S. C. 332, 54 S.E. 578.

The third exception complains of error in charging "that the obligation of a common carrier for safe transportation is one arising from contract imposing duties growing out of the relation between the parties, involving trust and confidence requiring extraordinary care, and whenever a passenger is injured on a train, without fault on his part, while being transported by a carrier, a presumption arises from this fact alone that there was negligence in the management of the road, which presumption the carrier is bound to rebut, or it will be liable in damages without further proof"-the error being that no presumption...