Craven v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, No. 13213.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 412 F.2d 835
• Parties: Elden R. CRAVEN, Appellee, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 13213.
• Decision Date: 14 July 1969

412 F.2d 835 (1969)

Elden R. CRAVEN, Appellee,
v.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 13213.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 10, 1969.

Decided July 14, 1969.

Ben Scott Whaley, Charleston, S. C., (Nathaniel L. Barnwell, and Barnwell, Whaley, Stevenson & Patterson, Charleston, S. C., on the brief) for appellant.

E. Graydon Shuford, Jr., Hanahan, S. C., (Richard G. Lawrence, Hanahan, S. C., on the brief) for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, SOBELOFF and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is the Southern Railway Company's appeal from a judgment after a jury verdict awarding Elden Craven $41,700 for damages arising out of a collision between his automobile and the railroad's train at a crossing in Charleston

412 F.2d 836

County, South Carolina. Under the law of that state, railroads must sound warnings when approaching crossings with public highways. If the required warning is not given and a collision occurs, the railroad is liable for damages unless the injured party was guilty of "gross or willful negligence."¹

The sole question on this appeal is whether the District Court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the railroad on the ground that Craven was guilty of gross contributory negligence as a matter of law. For purposes of the appeal, the railroad concedes its own negligence. A review of the evidence convinces us that the contested issue of plaintiff's gross contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury. We affirm.

It is elementary that at the appellate stage the evidence and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and that the burden of proof on the issue of the plaintiff's gross contributory negligence was on the defendant railroad. The Supreme Court of South Carolina has defined gross contributory negligence as a failure to use even slight care or as "negligence so gross and reckless as to amount to willfulness." Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 169 S.C. 41, 168 S.E. 143, 157 (1932). Thus, the railroad is not entitled to reversal unless it establishes that the evidence permits no inference but that the plaintiff Craven's conduct was so extreme as to fall within this definition.

The case was fully tried below, and the factual issues were sharply controverted. Measurements, photographs and eyewitness testimony were adduced before the jury, and conflicting versions of the accident were presented and...