Allen v. Atlanta & C. Air Line Ry. Co
| Citation | 141 n. c. 340,53 S.E. 866 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 16 May 1906 |
| Parties | ALLEN. v. ATLANTA & C. AIR LINE RY. CO. |
Railroads—Crossing Accident— Contributory Negligence.
Plaintiff's intestate walked on the crossing of defendant railroad, and was struck and killed by defendant's train. If intestate had looked at a point 20 yards from the crossing she could have seen down the railroad in the direction from which the train approached for a distance of 200 yards, but she went on the crossing without looking, listening, turning her head, or paying any attention to the train. Held, that she was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 41, Cent. Dig. Rairoads, §§ 1043-1048.]
Appeal from Superior Court, Cleveland County; Justice, Judge.
Action by J. B. Allen as administrator of N. A. Allen, deceased, against Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Quinn & Hamrick, for appellant.
Geo. F. Bason and W. B. Rodman, for appellee.
The plaintiff's evidence was to the effect that the intestate walked on the railroad crossing, and was killed by the defendant's train, and that the intestate at a point 20 yards from the crossing, by simply looking, could have seen down the railroad 200 yards in the direction from which the train approached. The testimony of the plaintiff further showed that the intestate did not look, listen, or turn her head, and was paying no attention to the train. On this testimony, the court was clearly correct in giving an adverse intimation as to the plaintiffs right to recover.
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Horton v. Seabd. Air Line Ry. Co
-
Horton v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
...then the third class will be excluded. If any member of the last class does not come under the provision 'dependent upon such employé' (Allen, Dooley v. Railroad, 163 N.C. 454 [79 S.E. 970, L. R. A. 1916E, 785]), then such person is excluded from that class, and, if such exclusion should ap......
-
Janney v. Robbins
...the proof is unable to make good his claim, shall he for this reason be denied the right to retain the part to which he does show title and[53 S.E. 866]possession? Conceding, as we must, in reviewing the ruling of the court, that by a long adverse possession the defendant has acquired title......
-
Janney v. Robbins
... ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, Caldwell County; O. H. Allen, Judge ... Action ... by J. W. Janney and others, as trustees, against T. C ... Objection overruled and defendant excepted. The papers in ... this line of title seem to have been all registered by ... January 7, 1890. Defendant then offered in ... ...