76 N.C. 320 (N.C. 1877), Crutchfield v. Richmond & D. R. Co.

Citation:76 N.C. 320
Opinion Judge:READE, J.
Party Name:PAUL W. CRUTCHFIELD v. THE RICHMOND & DANVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY.
Attorney:Messrs. T. J. Wilson and Watson & Glenn, for plaintiff, Mr. J. M. McCorkle, for defendant.
Judge Panel:PER CURIAM.
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 320

76 N.C. 320 (N.C. 1877)

PAUL W. CRUTCHFIELD

v.

THE RICHMOND & DANVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1877

CIVIL ACTION, tried at Fall Term, 1876, of FORSYTHE Superior Court before Kerr, J.

The plaintiff was a brakesman on that portion of defendant's road known as the North Western N.C. Rail Road, and while in the discharge of his duty as such was badly and permanently crippled by a defective engine and road bed of defendant company. This action was brought to recover damages for the injuries so received.

The evidence was that the engine was defective and one witness testified " that while engaged on the road as fireman he had seen the engine " walk off when no one was about it, and when the steam was shut off; ' that the road bed was in bad order at the place where the accident happened and that while plaintiff was engaged in coupling cars the train made a sudden rush backward, cutting and crushing the elbow of plaintiff."

The defendant insisted that plaintiff contributed to this injury by his own negligence and introduced Jacob Hicks who testified " that he was engineer on the train when plaintiff was injured, that the engine attached to the train was a good one, and that he could control it and did control it prior to and at the time of the injury to plaintiff."

Dr. Bahnsen, who had previously been examined as an expert, as to the extent, & c. of the injuries received by plaintiff, was recalled and testified in substance, that the night after the accident, he was returning from attendance on plaintiff and passed the depot in Greensboro, where he met the witness Hicks. He inquired of Hicks the cause of the injury. Hicks replied " that the engine was old and worn out, and that he could not stop it within several feet of the place he wanted to and at the time of the accident he felt the engine jerk backward."

There was other conflicting testimony, the statement of which is not necessary to an understanding of the opinion. His Honor submitted issues to the jury who found as follows;

1. The injury to plaintiff was caused by the negligence of defendant.

2. Plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence.

3. The injury was not caused by the negligence of any employee of defendant.

4. That plaintiff is entitled to $4.000 damages, Verdict for plaintiff. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP