Scott v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

Decision Date25 March 1918
Docket Number9940.
Citation96 S.E. 305,109 S.C. 471
PartiesSCOTT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County.

Action by Otis K. Scott against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

F. L Willcox, of Florence, for appellant.

J. W Ragsdale and Whiting & Baker, all of Florence, for respondent.

FRASER J.

This is an action for damages. The plaintiff was ordered, as conductor, to take a wreck train from Florence to Manning, to do some work at Manning. The train went from Florence through Lynchburg, to Sumter, and thence to Manning. Lynchburg is about halfway between Florence and Sumter. At Lynchburg the engineer discovered that there was a "snapshot" on the train. A snapshot is a condition of the air brakes that causes the brakes to go into emergency, when the brakes are put on for an ordinary stop. It is also called an "undesired emergency." The case shows that the emergency brake is the most powerful agency known to produce a sudden stop of a train. The case shows that the engineer discovered at Lynchburg that there was a snapshot on the train, but did not locate it until he reached Manning. He reported the snapshot to the conductor at Sumter. The conductor told the engineer to move off slowly, and he (the conductor) would inspect the train to locate the snapshot, and, if he could not find it he would warn him ahead, and the train could proceed to Manning. The proper signal was given, and the train went to Manning. At Manning the engine and tender and one car left the remaining portion of the train on the main line and went into a side track to move some cars that were standing there. The cars on the side track were coupled up to the engine, tender, and single car. The conductor went upon top of one of the cars on the side track to give the signals. He gave the signal to come back, and then a signal for a slow stop. The engineer understood the signals and applied the brakes; they went into emergency; the train stopped suddenly; the car immediately in the rear of the conductor broke loose; the conductor was thrown to the ground, and his leg was broken at the ankle. It is claimed that this is a permanent injury. The case further shows, and that by the appellant's witnesses, that a snapshot is caused by a defective air brake; that, while the conductor is in general charge of the movements of the train, the engineer is in charge of the manipulation of the engine and tender, and it is his duty to make small repairs of the engine between terminals, and with that the conductor is not allowed to interfere, unless his assistance is requested by the engineer, and that in this instance the engineer did not call for his assistance.

I. At the conclusion of the testimony the appellant asked for a directed verdict, on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence.

A. The first point is that there is no evidence that a defective air brake was furnished at Florence. The defective air brake was located on the tender at Manning, and there was evidence that it could not develop between Florence and Augusta, and Augusta is further than Manning. This was denied, but that was a question for the jury. It did appear at Lynchburg, just a few miles from Florence. There was evidence as to the kind of inspection made at Florence, and also that this brake went into emergency twice in five trials, and that raised the question for the jury as to the sufficiency of the inspection at Florence.

B. Again, it is claimed that the conductor was in charge of the train and undertook to inspect it at Sumter, and, if there was a defect, it was his business to discover it, and, if he failed to discover it, it was his own fault, and the appellant is not liable. This position overlooks the uncontradicted testimony of the engineer (appellant's witness), that the engineer was in charge of the manipulation of the engine and tender,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Duncan v. Record Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 21, 1927
    ... ... L. Smith, in his order ... refusing a new trial in Scott v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., ... 109 S.C. 471, 96 S.E. 305; which I have read ... common law." (Note.-Attention is called to the omission ... of a line in the printed report of this case. 124 S.C. at ... page 251, line 15 ... ...

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