Butler v. Southern Ry

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGARY
Citation90 N.C. 273,73 S.E. 185
PartiesBUTLER. v. SOUTHERN RY., CAROLINA DIVISION.
Decision Date29 December 1911

73 S.E. 185
(90 N.C. 273)

BUTLER.
v.
SOUTHERN RY., CAROLINA DIVISION.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Dec. 29, 1911.


[73 S.E. 185]

1. Railboads (§ 243*)—Municipal Regulations—Construction.

A city ordinance requiring every railroad company to maintain at every crossing a man with a white flag during the daytime and with a red light during the nighttime to display the flag or light when a train may be approaching is intended to subserve all useful purposes to prevent injuries at crossings, and a failure to comply with the ordinance renders crossings more dangerous to the public.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 754, 757; Dec. Dig. § 243.*]

2. Railroads (§ 308*)—Operation of Trains —Negligence Per Se.

The failure of a railroad company to comply with a city ordinance regulating the speed of trains within the city limits, and requiring every railroad company to maintain at every crossing a man with a flag during the daytime and with a red light at night to display the flag or light when a train is approaching, is negligence per se.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 978-980; Dec. Dig. § 308.*]

3. Railroads (§ 350*)—Accidents at Crossings—Negligence—Proximate Cause — Question for Jury.

Where, in an action against a railroad company for the death of a person struck by a train at a crossing, there was evidence of the negligence of the company in failing to comply with a city ordinance regulating the operation of trains, and of decedent's negligence, the question whether the negligence of the company or the negligence of decedent was the proximate cause was for the jury.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 1152-1192; Dec. Dig. § 350.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston Couuty; Ernest Gary, Judge.

Action by George F. Butler, administrator of Jeremiah F. Butler, deceased, against the Southern Railway, Carolina Division. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.

Logan & Grace, for appellant.

J. W. Barnwell, for respondent.

GARY, A. J. This is an action for damages alleged to have been sustained through the negligence and recklessness of the defendant in causing the death of plaintiff's intestate.

The allegations of the complaint material to the consideration of the questions involved are as follows:

"That on or about the 12th day of December, 1909, plaintiff's intestate, Jeremiah F. Butler, was on the public crossing and traveled place, and place where the public and people generally have been accustomed to pass and repass for more than 20 years last past, at the intersection of Russell street and Grove street, two of the public streets of the city of Charleston, and was endeavoring to drive off from the track of said defendant railway corporation which crosses said public crossing and traveled place and place where the public and people generally have been accustomed to pass and repass for more than 20 years last past, at the intersection of said Russell and Grove streets, a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Hines v. Sweeney, 1007
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • October 3, 1921
    ...App.) 222 S.W. 644; Traction Co. v. Apple, 34 App. D.C. 559; Evans v. Ry. Co., 92 S.C. 77, 75 S.E. 275; Butler v. Ry. Co., 90 S.C. 273, 73 S.E. 185.) 3. Counsel for defendant, however, contend that the accident to plaintiff in being pinned under the motor car was so unusual and extraordinar......
  • Craig v. Augusta-aiken Ry. Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 26, 1912
    ...upon the former appeal and is res adjudicata. Jones v. Railway, 65 S. C. 410, 43 S. E. 884. The case of Butler v. Railway, 90 S. C. 273, 73 S. E. 185, shows that such was the ruling of this court upon the former appeal herein, for it says: "It was held in Craig v. Railway, 89 S. C. 161......
  • Whaley v. Ostendorff
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1911
    ...doctrine announced in Dyson v. Railway, 83 S. C. 354, 65 S. E. 344, Lindler v. Railway, 84 S. C. 536, 66 S. E. 995, and Butler v. Railway, 73 S. E. 185, in which the opinion has just been filed. When evidence of negligence is only prima facie, it is subject to rebuttal, but, when there is n......
  • Evans v. Blue Ridge Ry. Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 18, 1912
    ...the deceased was the proximate cause of the injury, should have been sent to the jury." (Syllabus) Butler v. Railway, 90 S. C. 273, 73 S. E. 185. In that case the court uses this language: "A failure to comply with the requirements of the ordinance that a train should not exceed f......
4 cases
  • Hines v. Sweeney, 1007
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • October 3, 1921
    ...App.) 222 S.W. 644; Traction Co. v. Apple, 34 App. D.C. 559; Evans v. Ry. Co., 92 S.C. 77, 75 S.E. 275; Butler v. Ry. Co., 90 S.C. 273, 73 S.E. 185.) 3. Counsel for defendant, however, contend that the accident to plaintiff in being pinned under the motor car was so unusual and extraordinar......
  • Craig v. Augusta-aiken Ry. Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 26, 1912
    ...upon the former appeal and is res adjudicata. Jones v. Railway, 65 S. C. 410, 43 S. E. 884. The case of Butler v. Railway, 90 S. C. 273, 73 S. E. 185, shows that such was the ruling of this court upon the former appeal herein, for it says: "It was held in Craig v. Railway, 89 S. C. 161......
  • Whaley v. Ostendorff
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1911
    ...doctrine announced in Dyson v. Railway, 83 S. C. 354, 65 S. E. 344, Lindler v. Railway, 84 S. C. 536, 66 S. E. 995, and Butler v. Railway, 73 S. E. 185, in which the opinion has just been filed. When evidence of negligence is only prima facie, it is subject to rebuttal, but, when there is n......
  • Evans v. Blue Ridge Ry. Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 18, 1912
    ...the deceased was the proximate cause of the injury, should have been sent to the jury." (Syllabus) Butler v. Railway, 90 S. C. 273, 73 S. E. 185. In that case the court uses this language: "A failure to comply with the requirements of the ordinance that a train should not exceed f......

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