Grant v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 November 1909
• Citation: 65 S.E. 1022,84 S.C. 114
• Parties: GRANT v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

65 S.E. 1022

84 S.C. 114

GRANT v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 1, 1909

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; J. W. De Vore, Judge.

Action by Ladema Grant, by her guardian ad litem, against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bonham Watkins & Allen, for appellant. E. M. Rucker and Martin & Earle, for respondent.

JONES C.J.

The plaintiff, a girl under 14 years old, brought this action, by guardian ad litem, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligence and recklessness of defendant's employé in throwing a trunk against her foot and leg while a passenger crossing from the train of defendant company to that of the Blue Ridge at Belton, S. C on August 12, 1908. The judgment was for plaintiff for $300. A motion for nonsuit, and afterwards for new trial, was made on the ground that there was no evidence of willful disregard of duty by defendant, and such question should not have been submitted to the jury.

The exceptions to the rulings of the court cannot be sustained. The testimony in behalf of plaintiff tended to show that the angle between the Southern and Blue Ridge lines at Belton, S C., was crowded with passengers on account of the veterans' union, and a negro association, and that in making the transfer for Anderson, S. C., it became necessary for plaintiff, who was accompanied by her father with a little child in his arms, her mother, and another relative to go within the narrow space between the Southern train and the baggage room, and that, while passing along at that point close to the depot, a trunk was thrown out of the baggage car of defendant's train to the ground and was whirled over by an employé in such way that it fell against plaintiff's leg and upon her foot, and so mashing the big toe of her foot as to cause it to grow so out of line as to be overlapped by other toes. According to the testimony for the defense none of the defendant's employés saw or had any recollection of the occurrence. We cannot say the testimony shows conclusively that, if the injury happened as stated, it was the result of mere inadvertence, and not the result of a reckless disregard for the safety of passengers under the circumstances calling for special care not to injure them while handling baggage. Nor, in view of the testimony, can we say there was error in...