Bennettsville & C.R. Co. v. Hickson Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 13 January 1913
• Parties: BENNETTSVILLE & C. R. CO. v. HICKSON LUMBER CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

76 S.E. 1087

93 S.C. 382

BENNETTSVILLE & C. R. CO. v. HICKSON LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 13, 1913

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Marlboro County; R. C Watts, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by the Bennettsville & Cheraw Railroad Company against the Hickson Lumber Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Willcox & Willcox and J. S. Mitchell, all of Florence, for appellant. Stevenson, Matheson & Prince and Edward McIver, all of Cheraw, for respondent.

HYDRICK J.

Plaintiff made a contract with defendant whereby defendant was granted the right to run its logging trains over plaintiff's tracks between certain stations on plaintiff's road. The contract provided, among other things, that defendant should furnish its own locomotive engine and pay the salary of the engineer, who was to be employed by plaintiff, but, upon reasonable showing by defendant of incompetency or neglect of duty, plaintiff was to discharge him and employ another that, while on plaintiff's tracks, the engineer and log train should be subject to plaintiff's control, but, at all other times, subject to defendant's control; that the engineer should keep the locomotive in first-class condition that, while on plaintiff's tracks, plaintiff should be responsible for all collisions between trains and for wrecks caused by defective track or the negligence of its employés, and responsible to defendant for all injury and damage to its equipment from said causes, and defendant should be responsible for injuries to its own employés, except those caused by defective track or the negligence of plaintiff's employés. By the negligence of defendant, in failing to equip its locomotive with suitable grates, fire was set out, while the engine was on plaintiff's track, and destroyed a freight car and some cross-ties, to plaintiff's damage $471.29, for which plaintiff had judgment against defendant.

Defendant contends that, because the contract enumerates certain grounds of liability of the parties to each other, neither is liable to the other on any ground not mentioned in the contract. This contention is unsound. The law imposes liability upon every person, legally responsible, for the proximate consequences of his negligence, and the fact that one has contracted against liability on certain grounds does not relieve him from liability for his negligence, resulting...