Cobb v. D.C. & G. R. Co

Citation15 S.E. 878,37 S.C. 194
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decision Date26 September 1892
PartiesCobb v. Columbia & G. R. Co.

Railroads—Frightening Horse—Misconduct or Trainmen—Damages—Exemplary and Actual.

1. Where an action is for exemplary damages, no recovery can be had for actual damages. Mclver, C. J., dissenting.

2. A railroad company is liable for the misconduct of an engineer in unnecessarily, willfully, and maliciously sounding the whittle and blowing off steam, so as to frighten a

horse, and cause him to run away; but not for the misconduct of the trainmen in shouting and yelling at the said horse.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Abbeville county; J. B. Kershaw, Judge.

Action by Butler W. Cobb against the Columbia & Greenville Railroad Company lor injury to plaintiff's horse, alleged to have been caused by the engineer unnecessarily, willfully, and maliciously sounding the whistle and blowing off steam, and the willful, wrongful, and malicious shouting of the crew, whereby the said horse became frightened and ran away. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

The following Is the part of the charge referred to in the opinion: "Gentlemen of the jury: The claim of the plaintiff in this case, as stated in the complaint, is that his horse was frightened by the railroad train of the defendant by negligent or willful noises made, which would frighten a horse, and produced the injury which is alleged to have happened, resulting in the death of the horse, and for which they ask damages at your hands. Well, gentlemen, the first point of inquiry is whether the horse was made to run away and received this accident by the improper conduct or the defendant's employes; either something that they did or ought not to have done that was improper on their part. There are three alleged causes stated in the complaint. The first is that the horse was frightened by the blowing of the whistle on the engine, and by the 'escape of steam; and that is said to have been unnecessary and improper, if not willfully done on the part of the people in charge of the train, and that that caused the horse to become frightened, and to break away from the man that was plowing with him. Negligence, gentlemen of thejury, consists of the want of due care. Was there a want of due care—due and proper care —on that occasion on the part of the railroad employes, and did that cause the accident in question, and was that without any want of care on the part of the plaintiff? Those are the questions for you to determine. You have heard the testimony which is adduced here as to what is claimed to have justified the blowing of the whistle and the escape of the steam on that occasion. Now, whatever was necessary or proper to be done in the handling of that train the railroad authorities had the right to have done. They could not operate their railroad unless they were allowed to manage their trains in the proper manner. It is claimed that, owing to the confirmation of the ground at that particular point, in starting off it was necessary to blow off steam, to let the steam escape in the manner described, in order to get the train up the hill. Well, now, was that necessary and proper? That is for you. Then, again, it is claimed that the whistle was properly blown there because the law requires the blowing of the whistle within 500—1 thought it was 600; counsel says 500—yards of a place where a public road crosses the track, and they say that that is what they were blowing for. Well, If the circumstances were such as to require that, —if they were required by law to blow at that particular point,-they could not be held responsible for blowing. The law says that within a specified distance of a public crossing the engineer or persons in charge of an engine must blow the whistle or ring the bell until the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1907
    ...14 Am. Rep. 114; Akridge v. Railway, 90 Ga. 233, 16 S. E. 81; Railway v. Triplett, 54 Ark. 289, 15 S. W. 831, 16 S. W. 266; Cobb v. Railway, 37 S.C. 194, 15 S. E. 878; Railway v. Starnes, 56 Tenn. 52, 24 Am. Rep. 296; Everett v. Receivers, 121 N. C. 521, 27 S. E. 991; Brendle v. Spencer, 12......
  • Johnson v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1927
    ...acts, whether negligent or willful, follows as a matter of law. Quinn v. R. Co., 29 S. C. 381, 7 S. E. 614, 1 L. R. A. 682; Cobb v. R. Co., 37 S. C. 194, 15 S. E. 878; Eucker v. Smoke, 37 S. C. 377, 16 S. E. 40, 34 Am. St. Rep. 758; Skipper v. Clifton Mfg. Co., 58 S. C. 143, 36 S. E. 509; R......
  • Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1907
    ...14 Am. Rep. 114; Akridge v. Railway, 90 Ga. 233, 16 S.E. 81; Railway v. Triplett, 54 Ark. 289, 15 S.W. 831, 16 S.W. 266; Cobb v. Railway, 37 S.C. 194, 15 S.E. 878; Railway v. Starnes, 56 Tenn. 52, 24 Am. Rep. Everett v. Receivers, 121 N.C. 521, 27 S.E. 991; Brendle v. Spencer, 125 N.C. 474,......
  • Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1927
    ... ... as a matter of law. Quinn v. R. Co., 29 S.C. 381, 7 ... S.E. 614, 1 L. R. A. 682; Cobb v. R. Co., 37 S.C ... 194, 15 S.E. 878; Rucker v. Smoke, 37 S.C. 377, 16 ... S.E. 40, 34 Am. St. Rep. 758; Skipper v. Clifton Mfg ... Co., ... ...
  • 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