Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Glenn

Decision Date28 July 1952
Docket NumberNo. 6420.,6420.
Citation198 F.2d 232
PartiesATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. GLENN.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Douglas McKay, Columbia, S. C. (Douglas McKay, Jr., and Julius W. McKay, Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellant.

Claud N. Sapp, Jr., Columbia, S. C., (Allen M. Sapp, Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellee.

Before SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges, and PAUL, District Judge.

DOBIE, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of South Carolina, pursuant to a jury verdict, awarding $54,600.00 in damages to the plaintiff. The action was brought under the provisions of "Lord Campbell's Act," Sections 411 and 412, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1942), by the widow of a deceased, on behalf of herself and three minor children as beneficiaries, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of her husband, arising out of a collision between an automobile driven by him and the defendant's train at a country railroad crossing.

The District Court overruled the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and we are called upon to decide whether these rulings are correct. We think that the motions should have been granted on the ground that the evidence conclusively shows plaintiff's intestate to have been guilty of gross contributory negligence as a matter of law.

The collision involved here occurred on December 28, 1950, at or around 1:30 P.M. at a grade crossing of the defendant railroad near the defendant's station of Sims, in Richland County, South Carolina. The deceased was proceeding in his Ford automobile from his home near Highway No. 76 to his store on Bluff Road, a dirt highway running nearly parallel but some miles South from Highway No. 76. This was not his usual route to the store although he had traveled this way before. With him in the car were his two nephews, Thomas G. Wilson, Jr., and William A. Davis, each of whom was thirteen years old.

The track at the grade crossing runs East and West, and the dirt road crosses it at a right angle. The crossing is marked with the usual cross-buck sign. The record contains varying testimony as to the existence of obstructions to the deceased's view of the track when he approached the crossing. Some of the plaintiff's witnesses testified to the presence of a growth of weeds and bushes, plus a black jack oak thicket blocking the view. But the evidence is clear that for approximately sixty feet the deceased had a clear view up and down the track. This sixty foot distance comprised the railroad's right of way and was cleared of any obstructions. The bushes, weeds and black jack oaks were further back in a field along the dirt road and could have impeded the deceased's vision only up to where the cleared right of way began.

The defendant admits that the woods road which extended within the northern side of its right of way toward the West has been widened on its northern edge since the collision, but it is nevertheless quite apparent that the sixty foot cleared distance was present before the alteration.

There was considerable testimony that no signal, either by bell or whistle, was given before the defendant's train reached the crossing. However, one witness, who was walking along the dirt road on the other side of the crossing from the deceased, testified that he saw smoke from the train and heard the train coming.

It was a cold day, one of the worst of the winter, but the testimony conflicts as to whether the windshield and windows of the deceased's car were blurred by ice. The windows of the car were closed. In any event, one of deceased's nephews, William Davis, testified that he did not see the train before it struck the car. He also testified that his uncle, the deceased, did not look up and down until the automobile was almost on the track.

Instead, the deceased drove straight ahead, although apparently slowing down somewhat to take a last minute glance, and the car was hit by the defendant's engine. The deceased was thrown out of the car, and under the train some hundred feet before the final stop and apparently was instantly killed. The two boys were taken from the car more or less seriously injured.

It is settled that under South Carolina law the failure by those in charge of a train to give the proper signals at a crossing is negligence per se and requires a defense of gross contributory negligence to relieve the railroad of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Westley v. Southern Railway Co., 7505.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • November 26, 1957
    ...Line R. Co., 1936, 179 S.C. 493, 184 S.E. 96; Breeden v. Rockingham R. Co., 1940, 193 S.C. 220, 8 S.E.2d 366; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Glenn, 4 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 232; Taylor v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1950, 217 S.C. 435, 60 S.E.2d 889; Carter v. Peace, 1956, 229 S.C. 346, 93 S.E......
  • Parker v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • September 14, 1955
    ...requires, and that the plaintiff could have avoided the accident if she had exercised the care required by law. In Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Glenn, 4 Cir., 198 F.2d 232, the Circuit Court of Appeals cited Robison v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 179 S.C. 493, 184 S.E. 96, 100, as being co......
  • Smith v. Biggs
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 17, 1955
    ...v. Chappell, 4 Cir., 213 F.2d 76; Hall v. McKinney, 4 Cir., 211 F.2d 874; Taska v. Wolfe, 4 Cir., 208 F. 2d 705; Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co. v. Glenn, 4 Cir., 198 F.2d 232. Since we are reversing the judgment below, it is unnecessary for us to pass on the contention of Smith (appellant)......
  • Eastern Brick and Tile Co. v. United States, Civ. A. No. 66-449.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • February 29, 1968
    ...train they plainly observed across the crossing. Both "acted in utter disregard of his (their) own safety." Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Glenn (C.C. A.S.C.1952) 198 F.2d 232, 234. In this case, the truck driver's excuse is that he would have made it across, if the engine had not increased ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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