Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Fondren, 25969

CourtMississippi Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHOLDEN, P.J.
Citation145 Miss. 679,110 So. 365
PartiesCOLUMBUS & G. RY. CO. v. FONDREN. [*]
Docket Number25969
Decision Date22 November 1926

110 So. 365

145 Miss. 679

COLUMBUS & G. RY. CO.
v.
FONDREN. [*]

No. 25969

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 22, 1926


Division B

. (Division B.) [110 So. 365.]

RAILROADS. Instruction relative to inference of negligence of railroad under statute held error, where testimony showed how crossing accident occurred.

In suit for injuries when automobile in which plaintiff was riding was struck by a train at public crossing, instruction under prima-facie negligence statute relative to inference of negligence against railway company held error, where testimony fully explained how injury occurred.

HON. J. I. STURDIVANT, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Oktibbeha county, HON. J. I. STURDIVANT, Judge.

Suit by T. L. Fondren against the Columbus & Greenville Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

Reporter's Note:--Elaborate briefs by Owen & Garnett, Will E. Ward and A. F. Gardner, for appellant and Daniel & Greene, for appellee, raised no new point of law. Pertinent decisions cited by counsel, are listed in the court's opinion.

Argued orally by T. C. Garnett, for appellant.

OPINION

HOLDEN, P.J.

The Columbus & Greenville Railway Company appeals from a judgment for two thousand dollars in favor of T. [145 Miss. 680] L. Fondren as damages for personal injuries received by him on account of being struck by a passenger train at a public crossing in Moorhead, while riding in a Ford coupe with three other persons.

Appellant urges several grounds for reversal, but we shall notice only one, and that is, whether or not the court erred in giving plaintiff certain instructions on our prima-facie negligence statute, which will result in a reversal, and the other questions may not arise on a new trial.

The facts of the case, so far as they are pertinent to a decision, are that appellee, Fondren, and three other young men were riding in a Ford coupe on the public road running parallel with the railroad, and when they reached a public crossing in Moorhead and attempted to cross the track just ahead of an approaching passenger train going in the same direction that appellee had been traveling before reaching the crossing, they were struck by the train, and appellee was seriously injured, for which he brought this suit.

There were many witnesses who testified in the case with reference to whether the bell was ringing and the whistle blowing as the train approached the crossing. There was a conflict in the testimony as to whether the statutory crossing signals were given by the engineer; there was also conflict in the testimony as to the condition of the crossing where the automobile was struck. The testimony of the witnesses in the case fully explained how the injury occurred, and it was the duty of the jury to pass upon the issues...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Key v. Carolina & N. W. Ry. Co, No. 13112.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 9, 1931
    ...of opposing evidence. Gulf, M. & N. R. Co. v. Brown, 138 Miss. 39, 66, 102 So. 855 et seq.; Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Fond-ren, 145 Miss. 679, 110 So. 365. That of Georgia as construed in this case creates an inference that is given effect of evidence to be weighed against opposing testimony......
  • Ford v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, No. 13405.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1932
    ...of opposing evidence. Gulf. M. & N. R. Co. v. Brown, 138 Miss. 39, 66, 102 So. 855 et seq.; Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Fondren, 145 Miss. 679, 110 So. 365. That of Georgia as construed in this case creates an inference that is given effect of evidence to be weighed against opposing testimony,......
  • Stump v. Bennett, No. 18920.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 16, 1968
    ...of opposing evidence. Gulf, M. & N. R. Co. v. Brown, 138 Miss. 39, 66, 102 So. 855 et seq.; Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Fondren, 145 Miss. 679, 110 So. 365. That of Georgia as construed in this case creates an inference that is given effect of evidence to be weighed against opposing testimony ......
  • Columbus & Greenville R. Co. v. Lee, 26535
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 27, 1928
    ...S. R. 173. The instruction given for plaintiff should not have been given and was error, because this court has held in the Fondren case, 110 So. 365, that, "where testimony fully explains how injury occurred, it is error to give an instruction under prima-facie statute." It cannot be denie......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Key v. Carolina & N. W. Ry. Co, No. 13112.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 9, 1931
    ...of opposing evidence. Gulf, M. & N. R. Co. v. Brown, 138 Miss. 39, 66, 102 So. 855 et seq.; Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Fond-ren, 145 Miss. 679, 110 So. 365. That of Georgia as construed in this case creates an inference that is given effect of evidence to be weighed against opposing testimony......
  • Ford v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, No. 13405.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1932
    ...of opposing evidence. Gulf. M. & N. R. Co. v. Brown, 138 Miss. 39, 66, 102 So. 855 et seq.; Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Fondren, 145 Miss. 679, 110 So. 365. That of Georgia as construed in this case creates an inference that is given effect of evidence to be weighed against opposing testimony,......
  • Stump v. Bennett, No. 18920.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 16, 1968
    ...of opposing evidence. Gulf, M. & N. R. Co. v. Brown, 138 Miss. 39, 66, 102 So. 855 et seq.; Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Fondren, 145 Miss. 679, 110 So. 365. That of Georgia as construed in this case creates an inference that is given effect of evidence to be weighed against opposing testimony ......
  • Columbus & Greenville R. Co. v. Lee, 26535
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 27, 1928
    ...S. R. 173. The instruction given for plaintiff should not have been given and was error, because this court has held in the Fondren case, 110 So. 365, that, "where testimony fully explains how injury occurred, it is error to give an instruction under prima-facie statute." It cannot be denie......
  • 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