58 S.E. 963 (S.C. 1907), Horn v. Southern Ry.
|Citation:||58 S.E. 963, 78 S.C. 67|
|Opinion Judge:||WOODS, J.|
|Party Name:||HORN et al. v. SOUTHERN RY.|
|Attorney:||Sanders & De Pass, for appellant. De Pass & De Pass, for respondents.|
|Case Date:||September 03, 1907|
|Court:||Supreme Court of South Carolina|
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; Klugh, Judge.
Action by Mary Louisa Horn and Ben Horn against the Southern Railway. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed
The plaintiff Mary Louisa Horn, her husband, John Horn, and her adult sister on March 5, 1905, were passengers from Union to Jonesville on the defendant's train. The action was brought for injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff in a fall due to the turning of a stool placed on the ground to aid passengers in alighting.
The plaintiff testified she had several parcels, and asked the conductor to help her when she reached Jonesville; that her husband preceded her in getting off the train with their baby in his arms; that neither conductor nor porter rendered her any assistance; that, when she stepped from the car with a clothes case in one hand, a hat and umbrella in the other, the stool turned and threw her to the ground because it was not set in the right place; that the conductor was standing on the ground where the passengers were alighting, saw her fall, and, so far from offering her assistance, actually laughed at her. The conductor testified he had no recollection of the request for assistance; that he did take the arm of the plaintiff as of other women to aid them in stepping off; that the stool was placed in exactly the proper place, but he observed the plaintiff come down the steps looking over at the crowd, and not at the stool; that the plaintiff merely staggered around without falling, and made no complaint whatever. He denied laughing at the plaintiff. His testimony that a number of other passengers had preceded the plaintiff and alighted in safety was not disputed. There was some evidence that the place where the car stopped was not quite level, but this was denied by the conductor.
This statement makes the issues of fact sufficiently clear. The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $800. The appeal relates to alleged errors in the charge of the circuit judge. We do not think there is any ground upon which this court can interfere with the judgment.
1. [78 S.C. 69] In imposing upon the defendant the burden of proving contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence, the circuit judge by a verbal slip...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP