Reeves v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry.

Decision Date12 August 1915
Docket Number9155.
Citation85 S.E. 1059,101 S.C. 433
PartiesREEVES v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RY.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Colleton County; I. W Bowman, Judge.

Action by J. M. Reeves against the Atlantic Coast Line Railway. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Jas. E Peurifoy and L. B. Houck, both of Walterboro, for appellant.

Padgett & Moorer, of Walterboro, for respondent.

HYDRICK J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment against defendant for damages for the killing of his horse under these circumstances Defendant's pay train had stopped at Adams Run. While standing there, plaintiff's horse got out of his lot near the station and strayed upon the track. When the train was ready to move, the fireman got off the engine to drive the horse off the track. There was a trestle about 400 yards ahead, and the horse went down the track, until he got to the trestle, when he turned and came back meeting the train which was slowly approaching. According to plaintiff's testimony, the fireman and conductor, who had joined him in his efforts to drive the horse off the track, frightened him and prevented him from going back towards his lot, which he tried several times to do, and drove him toward the trestle. Finally, frightened by the fireman and conductor and the noise of the approaching engine and train, and being prevented from going back to his lot, he ran down the track and jumped into the trestle, breaking one of his forelegs, so that he had to be killed. Plaintiff testified that the accident could easily have been avoided, if the fireman and conductor had gotten off the track and let the horse pass them, or if they had gotten off and gone around him and gotten between him and the trestle, which they knew was ahead; but they persisted in driving him toward the trestle, thinking, no doubt, that he would leave the track on one side or the other before going upon the trestle. On the other hand, the defendant's testimony tended to show that the fireman did get between the horse and the trestle and tried to drive him back past the train, but that he was frightened, and ran by the fireman, and, in doing so, came near running over him. This, however, was denied by the plaintiff and another witness.

The foregoing statement of the evidence shows that it was conflicting on a material issue. There was therefore no error in refusing defendant's motion for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT