Brown v. Spartanburg

Decision Date17 April 1900
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesBROWN v. SPARTANBURG, U. & C. R. CO.

NEGLIGENCE—PROXIMATE CAUSE—RAILROADS —COUNTRY-ROAD CROSSING—DEFECTIVE BRIDGE.

In an action against a railroad company for injuries to a wagon and team, the petition alleged negligence in maintaining a defective bridge over defendant's track at a country-road crossing, and that by reason of its defective condition the bridge fell, and caused the team to be held on defendant's track, where they were struck by an engine before they could be extricated, and the injuries complained of were, sustained. The proof showed that no injury was done to the wagon and team by the falling of the bridge; but that the injury was inflicted by an engine passing over such track. Held, that the falling of the bridge was not the proximate cause of the injury by reason of the negligence alleged, and a motion for nonsuit was properly granted. Jones, J., dissenting.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Spartanburg county; J. C. Klugh, Judge.

Action by M. M. Brown against the Spartanburg, Union & Columbia Railroad Company. From a Judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Hydrick & Wilson, for appellant.

Duncan & Sanders, for respondent

McIVER, C. J. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant company to recover damages done to his wagon and team by the alleged negligence of the said railroad company. The only negligence alleged in the complaint was in failing to keep in repair a bridge across a ditch on the side of the defendant's track at a point where it intersected a "country road, " to enable persons traveling said road to cross the, track of said railroad company; for the complaint, after allegations of negligence in keeping said bridge in proper repair, proceeds as follows: "That on said day at said point while plaintiff's said team of mules and wagon, with its load, were traveling said road, the bridge, by reason of its said rotten and unsafe condition, fell, and caused the said team to be held upon the track of the defendant, in which position, before they could be extricated, they were struck by a passing engine running upon said track, " and the injuries complained of were sustained. But the complaint fails to allege any negligence in running said engine, or any negligence on the part of the engineer in failing to stop his engine in time to avoid the collision with the team on the track. The case came on for trial before his honor, Judge Klugh, and, at the close of the testimony in behalf of the plaintiff, counsel for defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the ground that "the negligence alleged in the complaint, and the negligence proven, is that the bridge fell in, and further proof that the negligence which they have alleged and shown, according to their own witness, Mr. Rowland Quinn, did not cause any injury to the mules and wagon." The circuit judge ruled as follows: "I think the testimony fails to show the infliction of any injury as the result of the negligence alleged in the complaint, and the motion for a nonsuit will be allowed." A formal order was passed, granting the motion, and, judgment of nonsuit having been entered, the plaintiff appealed upon the following grounds: "That his honor erred in holding that the testimony failed to show that the injury inflicted upon the plaintiff was the result of the negligence alleged in the complaint and in granting the nonsuit, inasmuch as the testimony established these facts: That the bridge maintained by defendant on each side and across its track fell because of its rotten and unsafe condition, carried plaintiff's wagon and team down with it, and held them upon defendant's track until they were struck and injured by defendant's engine, which facts were alleged in the complaint as constituting the negligence which was plaintiff's cause of action." The testimony is set out in the "case, " and it not only fails to contain anything tending to showthat any injury whatever was done to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 10 Diciembre 1924
    ... ... that charge. Fell v. Railroad Co., 33 S.C. 198, 11 ... S.E. 691; Jenkins v. McCarthy, 45 S.C. 278, 22 S.E ... 883; Brown v. Railroad Co., 57 S.C. 435, 35 S.E ... 731; Sutton v. Railroad Co., 82 S.C. 345, 64 S.E ... 401; King v. Railroad Co., 6 Idaho, 306, 55 P ... ...
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 10 Diciembre 1924
  • Grieve v. Huber
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 9 Abril 1928
    ... ... [ * ] No. 1479 Supreme Court of Wyoming April 9, 1928 ... APPEAL ... from District Court, Natrona County; CYRUS O. BROWN, Judge ... Action ... by Harriett T. Grieve against Paul Huber, the Central Trading ... Company, and others. From an order granting ... ...
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Farmer
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 4 Noviembre 1909
    ... ... The complaint alleged: That ... on August 2, 1906, while employed by the railroad company, ... defendant in error was directed by J. J. Brown, the railroad ... company's foreman in charge of the work, to chain ... together two cars; that while so engaged the 'defendant, ... its agents ... plaintiff is restricted to proofs of such acts of ... negligence.' ... In the ... case of Brown v. Spartanburg U. & C.R.R. Co., 57 ... S.C. 433, 35 S.E. 732, the court, in discussing this ... question, said: ... 'It ... seems to us that the ... ...
  • 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