Bentley v. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 April 1889
• Citation: 86 Ala. 484,6 So. 37
• Parties: BENTLEY v. GEORGIA PAC. RY. CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

6 So. 37

86 Ala. 484

BENTLEY v. GEORGIA PAC. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 16, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Cleburne county; LEROY F. BOX, Judge.

This action was brought by George M. Bentley, as administrator of the estate of Isham Bentley, deceased, to recover damages for his negligent killing, as alleged, by the servants and agents of the defendant company.The deceased was run over and killed by one of defendant's trains, on November 18 1886, while walking across a trestle on defendant's track.There was a verdict and judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.

Kelly & Smith, for appellant.

James Weatherly and Aiken & Benton, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

The plaintiff, Bentley, sues in his representative capacity for the alleged negligent killing of his intestate by the wrongful act of the defendant railway company.The evidence shows that the deceased, a man 65 years of age, was, at the time of the accident, walking on the track of the road crossing a trestle which was about 75 feet long and 25 feet high.He resided in the neighborhood, and knew that the westbound passenger train was past due, and momentarily expected.On the east side of the trestle there was a cut about 18 feet deep at the highest point, and curving slightly, and with a down grade from about one mile east, running west towards the place of the accident.

We can scarcely say that the evidence tended to show any negligence on the part of the railroad servants in charge of the train but, conceding that it did, there is nothing to authorize the inference that such negligence was wanton, reckless, or intentional.Our past decisions commit us to the rule that one who walks on the track of a railroad company, without invitation or license, is a trespasser, and such companies owe trespassers no such duty as to require a special lookout for their intrusions, except at public crossings, and within the limits of cities, towns, and villages.They are only bound to the exercise of reasonable diligence after such trespassers are discovered, or their peril of injury becomes apparent.Railroad Co. v. Blanton,84 Ala. 154, 4 South. Rep. 621;Railroad Co. v. Womack,84 Ala. 149, 4 South. Rep. 618;Railroad Co. v. Donovan,84 Ala. 141, 4 South. Rep. 142.A trespasser, in other words, upon the right of way of a railroad company, at any other place than a public crossing, or in a city, town, or village, cannot maintain an...