Bryson v. Hines
Decision Date | 12 July 1920 |
Docket Number | 1790. |
Parties | BRYSON et al. v. HINES, Director General of Railroads, et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Zeb F Curtis, of Asheville, N.C., D. W. Robinson, of Columbia S.C., and James J. Britt, of Asheville, N.C. (Harkins & Van Winkle, of Asheville, N.C., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.
P. A Willcox, of McRae, Ga., A. L. Hardee, of Wilmington, N.C., and Thomas S. Rollins, of Asheville, N.C. (Charles F. Patterson, of Washington, D.C., and Martin, Rollins & Wright, of Asheville, N.C., on the brief), for defendants in error.
Before PRITCHARD and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and ROSE, District Judge.
On May 10, 1918, Walter C. Bryson and Philetus C. Swann, soldiers of Company A, 321st Regiment of Infantry, were killed in Camp Jackson Military Reservation by derailment of a train on which they were being transported under military orders. In separate actions for damages, tried together by consent, their administrators charge that the proximate cause of the derailment was negligence of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and the Director General of Railroads.
There was abundant evidence of acts of negligence alleged in the complaints, but the District Court directed a verdict for the defendants; one of the grounds being that the right of recovery against the railroad company and the Director General for the injury or death of a soldier had been supplanted and taken away by the following circular:
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company constructed the road from Simm's Station on its line into Camp Jackson. The sole purpose of construction was the transportation of troops and supplies and munitions for the construction and maintenance of the camp. The Southern and Seaboard Railroads paid part of the cost, under bills rendered by the Coast Line. This construction was completed before the Director General took charge of railroads under the President's proclamation of December 26, 1917. The portion of road which was inside the limits of Camp Jackson, on which the accident occurred, was acquired by the government, either by purchase from the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company or under a contract with that railroad company for its construction as a part of the reservation. On demand for cars by the military authorities, they were carried into the reservation and brought out by an engine of the Coast Line in charge of one of its engineers. Within the reservation the arrangement of the cars on the track and the entrainment of troops were under exclusive control of the military officers in charge. The maintenance and repair of the track was in exclusive control of the War Department.
The evidence tended strongly to show that the accident was due chiefly to the negligent construction by the Coast Line of a grossly and obviously unsafe track, and the negligence of the government in accepting the track and in failing to make it safe after acquiring it. Col. Frank, quartermaster, testifying to the cause of the accident, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sutton v. Otis Elevator Co.
...F. 878; Kahner v. Otis Elevator Co., 89 N.Y.S. 185; Casey v. Hoover, 89 S.W. 330; O'Brien v. American Bridge Co., 125 N.W. 1012; Bryson v. Hines, 268 F. 290; Wood Sloan, 148 P. 507; McPherson v. Buick Motor Company (N.Y.) 101 N.E. 1050; Goar v. Village of Stephen (Minn.) 196 N.W. 171, Krahn......
-
McKay v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.
...by defective track even though soldier was ordered to take train over the track). The example in comment d is based on Bryson v. Hynes, 268 F. 290 (4th Cir.1920), a case which is not law in this circuit, and which is unlikely to be followed by modern courts, especially after the Feres and S......
-
Smith v. St. Joseph Railway, Light, Heat & Power Co.
...in charge of and under the control of another. Cedarland v. Thompson, 200 Mo.App. 618; Wilton v. Spokane, 132 P. 404; Bryson v. Hines, 268 F. 290, 11 A. L. R. 1438; O'Brien v. Am. Bridge Co., 125 N.W. Brown v. Smith, 141 N.W. 2. (4) The court did not err in giving to the jury additional ins......
-
Hazzard v. Alexander
... ... unconditional repeal of the statute which created it, there ... is neither common law nor statute to uphold it." ... Bryson, Adm'r, v. Hines, Director-General of ... Railroads (C. C. A.), 268 F. 290, 11 A. L ... R. 1438, cited by the plaintiff, held that an action ... ...