Caudle v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | 250. |
| Citation | 163 S.E. 122,202 N.C. 404 |
| Parties | CAUDLE v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Small, Judge.
Action by T. J. Caudle, Sr., administrator of the estate of Foch Caudle, deceased, against the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Complaint in action for death of 12 year old boy, struck by train when attention was attracted by rapidly moving freight train while crossing defendant's track along footpath, stated cause of action.
This is an action for actionable negligence brought by plaintiff, T J. Caudle, Sr., as administrator of the estate of Foch Caudle, deceased, to recover damages for the negligent killing of the plaintiff's intestate by the defendant Seaboard Air Line Railway Company. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff's intestate was a boy about twelve years of age, whose health, habits, industry, and training gave promise of a long life of usefulness and profit; that he was walking along a well-defined path which crossed the defendant's railroad track; that the path was situate a short distance north of a grade crossing; that the path had for many years prior thereto extended from state highway Nos. 10 and 50 across the defendant's line of railroad; that the well-defined footpath had for many years been used by the public during the day and night; that the defendant's railroad track was straight for a considerable distance in each direction from said footpath; that for a distance of about 450 feet east of the said footpath the defendant's line of railroad was up grade, so that a train approaching said footpath from the east would coast down grade; that on the 19th of July, 1930, at about 3 o'clock p. m., the plaintiff's intestate started across the defendant's line of railroad along the footpath referred to, and, when he reached the defendant's line of railroad, his attention was attracted by a rapidly moving freight train, which at said time was traveling in an easterly direction on the Southern Railway Company's track which was within a few feet of the defendant's said track; that said freight train consisted of a large number of cars, and was making considerable noise moving up grade; that at the time referred to the plaintiff's intestate was facing in a westerly direction, and the plaintiff's intestate entered upon or very near the north rail of the Seaboard track, and was watching the rapidly moving Southern freight train, when the defendant negligently, carelessly, and wrongfully ran and operated one of its locomotive engines along and upon said Seaboard track in a westerly direction, and permitted same to coast down grade, and the operative in charge of said engine negligently and carelessly failed to keep a reasonable and proper lookout, and negligently and carelessly failed to give reasonable and timely notice of the approach of said locomotive engine to said point, when the defendant knew, or in the exercise of due care, should have known, that the plaintiff's intestate's attention was attracted to said moving freight train; and that he would not hear the approach of said seaboard engine, and the defendant negligently and carelessly caused, allowed, and permitted said locomotive engine to collide with the plaintiff's intestate, his mangled body was carried for a distance of about 150 feet, and he died as a result of the injuries sustained at said time.
The specifications of negligence, founded on the above facts, appear in the complaint, and, it is alleged, were the proximate cause of the plaintiff's intestate's death, for which damage is demanded--naming the amount.
The defendant demurred to the complaint on the following grounds: The defendant excepted, assigned error, and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The court below rendered the following judgment:
Murray Allen, of Raleigh, for appellant.
Clyde A. Douglass, of Raleigh, for appellee.
We think there were sufficient facts alleged in the complaint to constitute actionable negligence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial