91 S.E. 380 (S.C. 1917), 9607, Moseley v. Carolina, C. & O. Ry. of South Carolina
|Citation:||91 S.E. 380, 106 S.C. 368|
|Opinion Judge:||WATTS, J.|
|Party Name:||MOSELEY v. CAROLINA, C. & O. RY. OF SOUTH CAROLINA ET AL.|
|Attorney:||Gwynn & Hannon, of Spartanburg, for appellant. Sanders & De Pass and Jesse W. Boyd, all of Spartanburg, and F. Barron Grier, of Greenwood, for respondents.|
|Case Date:||February 10, 1917|
|Court:||Supreme Court of South Carolina|
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; T. S. Sease, Judge.
Action by Lillie V. Moseley against the Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway of South Carolina and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The sixth request to charge was as follows:
(6) The statute law of South Carolina requires railway companies to ring the bell or blow the whistle continuously for a distance of 500 yards of trains before passing over any public crossing, and, if a railroad fails to give these signals, the jury would be warranted in considering the omission of the railroad to so give these signals in determining and considering the question of reckless operation of the train so failing to give the signals, and in determining
the question of punitive damages. Mack v. Railway, 52 S.C. 325, 29 S.E. 905, 40 L. R. A. 679, 68 Am. St. Rep. 913; Mason v. Railway, 58 S.C. 70, 36 S.E. 440, 53 L. R. A. 913, 79 Am. St. Rep. 826; Goodwin v. Railway, 82 S.C. 321, 64 S.E. 242. I refuse to charge you 6. It is a charge on the facts.
[106 S.C. 370] The fifth and sixth exceptions referred to are:
(5) In refusing plaintiff's eighth request to charge, which was as follows:
"I charge you, gentlemen, that mental suffering and injury to a person's nervous system resulting directly and proximately from a physical injury, no matter how slight the injury may be, are such elements of damage as should be properly considered by the jury in determining damages. Mack v. Railway, 52 S.C. 334 [29 S.E. 905, 40 L. R. A. 679, 68 Am. St. Rep. 913]."
"I charge you further that you have a right to consider in estimating damages an attack of sudden fright or an exposure to imminent peril in determining damage to the nervous system. It has been held by the Supreme Court of your state in Mack v. Railway that a sudden attack of fright or an exposure to imminent peril might render one who was physically strong and vigorous weak and timid. It is for you to apply the facts in this case as you view them. Mack v. Railway, 52 S.C. 335, 29 S.E. 905, 40 L. R. A. 679, 68 Am. St. Rep. 913. I refuse to charge 8, both sections. It is charging on the facts."
(6) That his honor erred in failing to charge the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP