Dampf v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
Decision Date | 15 February 1909 |
Citation | 48 So. 612,95 Miss. 85 |
Parties | JACOB DAMPF v. YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
March 1909
FROM the circuit court of Wilkinson county, HON. MOYSE H WILKINSON, Judge.
Dampf appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in defendant's favor, predicated of a peremptory instruction, plaintiff appealed to the supreme court.
Plaintiff a boy between twelve and thirteen years of age, was playing with several other small children around a turntable of the defendant railroad company. The turntable had been left unlocked, fastened in place only by an iron rod, which seems to have been removed by the children, who began to turn the turntable around; and while so doing, appellant's foot was caught, and one of his toes so crushed that its amputation became necessary. The defendant pleaded the gross negligence of the plaintiff, who had knowledge of the danger and had been warned that the structure was dangerous. On the trial the plaintiff offered to introduce testimony tending to show that one Bonney, an employe of the railroad company, near the turntable at the time engaged in watching an engine, had given the boys permission to play on the turntable, but the court below sustained defendant's objection thereto.
Reversed and remanded.
Shannon & Jones and E. G. Shannon, for appellant.
As to the liability of one leaving his property so situated as to entice boys into danger, for the resultant damages. Vicksburg v. McLain, 67 Miss. 4; Williams v. Spengler, 67 Miss. 1, 6 So. 613; Jamison v. Illinois, etc., R. Co., 63 Miss. 36; Mackey v. Vicksburg, 64 Miss. 777, 2 So. 178: Temple v. Electric Light Co., 89 Miss. 42 So. 874; Barrett v. Southern, etc. R. Co., 91 Cal. 296 ( ); Bransom's Admrs. v. Labrot, 81 Ky. 638; Powers v. Harlow, 53 Mich. 507; Nagle v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 75 Mo. 653; G. C., & S. F. R. Co. v. McWhirter, 77 Tex. 356; Ilwaco R. Co. v. Hedrick, 1 Wash. 446; B. & I. Co. v. Snyder, 18 Ohio St. 399; Gunn v. O. R. R. Co., 36 W.Va. 165; Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 22 Kan. 686; Evanisch v. G. C. & S. F. R. Co., 57 Tex. 126; Kerr v. Forgue, 54 Ill. 482; Gray & Bell v. Scott, 66 Pa. St. 345; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Boozer, 70 Tex. 530; Keffe v. M. & P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 207; Moebus v. Herman, 108 N.Y. 349; 29 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 32-34; 21 Ib. 474; 7 Ib. 407.
A child between seven and fourteen years of age prima facie not changeable with contributory negligence. Westbrooke v. Railroad Co., 66 Miss. 560.
This case is identical with many cases in which recoveries have been sustained, and stronger than many of them as to the actual knowledge of the defendant of the liability of the boys to be injured, and far stronger than any reported case on either side of the question, and in fact that this boy was there by the express consent of the defendant, which was ruled out by the court, and if the court did not err in excluding the testimony it must have been because the railroad was liable without such consent. If it was not, then the case must be reversed for this error. As to the warning of Miss Goslinski, it amounts to nothing. She was passing along the road immediately by this table and simply remarks in passing "You boys had better get off that turntable before you get hurt," or other words of about that import. Now there was not a boy there who had not heard from the time he staggered around his cradle in infancy holding on to it to keep from falling, until they heard Miss Goslinski that day, who had not constantly heard such warnings. is an expression that the average boy expects to hear several times a day from his cradle to manhood, and not only does he expect to hear it, but he also expects to get just such bumps as the warning has reference it. Who in his senses expecting a boy to get seriously hurt ever used such a warning, in passing? Who ever expected any boy to heed such a warning, especially from a girl, who might be expected to scream at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Howard
... ... HOWARD et al No. 29620 Supreme Court of Mississippi May 9, 1932 ... Suggestion Of Error ... 501, 55 N.E. 377; ... Citizens Trust Co. v. Ohio Valley Tie Co., 138 Ky. 421, 128 ... S.W. 317 ... Much ... ...
-
New Deemer Mfg. Co. v. Alexander
... ... Alexander Et Al. No. 21189 Supreme Court of Mississippi January 1, 1920 ... 1 ... MASTER AND SERVANT ... v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co., 77 Miss. 494; ... Railroad Co. v. Elliott, 149 U.S ... 266, 271; 2 Bailey on ... fifty cents per month. Trinity Valley R. Co ... v. Steward (Tex. Civ. App.), 62 S.W. 1085 ... ...
- Hawthorne v. Austin Organ Co.
-
Hughes v. Star Homes, Inc.
...Powder Co. v. Wolf, 145 Miss. 388, 110 So. 842 (1927); McTighe v. Johnson, 114 Miss. 862, 75 So. 600 (1917); Dampf v. Yazoo & M. V. R. R., 95 Miss. 85, 48 So. 612 (1909). Jackson summarizes our decisions on attractive nuisances holding that in the absence of special circumstances, the attra......