Adams v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1907
• Citation: 103 S.W. 725
• Parties: ADAMS v. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

103 S.W. 725

ADAMS v. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 24, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Miller County; Joel D. Conway, Judge.

Action by Thomas Adams against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

L. A. Byrne, for appellant. T. M. Mehaffy and J. E. Williams, for appellee.

BATTLE, J.

In the month of September, 1904, while Thomas Adams was walking across a trestle about 100 feet long and 20 feet high at the highest point, in the railroad of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, near the city of Texarkana, in this state, a passenger train of the company ran against and injured him. He was at the time a trespasser upon the trestle. He had no right to be there. It was constructed solely for the running of the cars and trains of the railroad company, and the fact that persons did walk upon it, however frequently, did not change its character and convert it into a highway for footmen. St. L., I. M. & Sou. Ry. Co. v. Wilkerson, 46 Ark. 513; Illinois, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hetherington, 83 Ill. 510; Spicer v. C. & O. Ry. Co., 34 W. Va. 514, 12 S. E. 553, 11 L. R. A. 385; Finlayson v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1 Dill. (U. S.) 579, Fed. Cas. No. 4,793. He was in a place of danger, and in so being was guilty of contributory negligence, and cannot recover damages on account of his injury, unless the trainmen either injured him wantonly, maliciously, or intentionally, or were guilty of negligence in avoiding injuring him after discovering his peril. It is not sufficient to show that they by the use of ordinary care could have discovered his peril, but should show that they actually discovered his peril in time to avoid his injury. St. L. & San Fran. Ry. v. Townsend, 69 Ark. 388, 63 S. W. 994; Barry v. Ft. Smith & M. Ry. Co., 77 Ark. 401, 91 S. W. 748; Burns v. Railway Co., 76 Ark. 10, 88 S. W. 824; C. R. & P. Ry. v. Bunch (Ark.) 102 S. W. 369. And the burden was upon him, before he could recover, to show that they discovered him upon the trestle and his perilous condition, in time to avoid injuring him, and willfully and recklessly injured him. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Townsend, supra. He has failed to advance any evidence to that effect. The evidence, probably, shows that they could have seen him; but that is not sufficient.

Judgment affirmed.

WOOD, J., dissents.