Dir. Gen. Of R.R.S v. Pence's Adm'x
Decision Date | 15 March 1923 |
Citation | 116 S.E. 351 |
Parties | DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS . v. PENCE'S ADM'X. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Brunswick County.
Action by the Administrator of Robert Pence against Director General of Railroads. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Hall, Wingfield & Apperson, of Roanoke, Nat. Turnbull, of Lawrenceville, and W. C. Plunkett, of Roanoke, for plaintiff in error.
Buford & Peterson, of Lawrenceville, and C. T. Lassiter, of Petersburg, for defendant in error.
KELLY, P. Robert Pence while riding in an automobile was struck and killed by a Virginian Railroad train at a crossing, and his administratrix brought this action for damages against the Director General, who at the time of the accident was operating the railroad. There was a verdict and judgment below in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant assigns error.
The facts of the case, so far as material for the purposes of this decision, may be fairly stated thus:
Pence was a traveling salesman employed by the International Harvester Company. At the time of the accident he was riding in a Ford runabout driven by Shirley Stillwell, a traveling salesman employed by W. H. Harrison Company. The Harvester Company was the manufacturer of a certain type of plows, which It wished to sell by wholesale to the Harrison Company, a local dealer. Thevolume of the sales by the Harvester Company to the Harrison Company depended upon the success of the latter in selling the plows to the local trade. For the mutual benefit of both companies an arrangement was entered into between them, whereby the Harvester Company agreed to furnish a salesman to visit the customers of the Harrison Company and sell plows to them, and the Harrison Company in turn agreed to furnish a car and driver to take the salesman around over the country and introduce him to the trade. Pursuant to this arrangement the Harvester Company sent Robert Pence, and the Harrison Company furnished the car, and sent one of its traveling salesmen, Shirley Stillwell, who acted as driver of the car, and also introduced Pence to the parties who were expected to buy the plows. Stillwell was acquainted with the country and with the contemplated customers, and Pence was a stranger to both. It was a joint enterprise in the sense that both companies would be benefited by the sales, and also in the sense that Pence and Stillwell were working at It together, but neither Pence nor Stillwell originated the scheme, and they were paid by and acting under the orders of their respective employers. Their connection with the undertaking and their relationship with each other are very well shown by the following extracts from the testimony of Mr. Geo. W. Harrison, the manager of the Harrison Company:
.
It further appeared in the statement of the witness W. J. Floyd, who testified for the defendant, that the two men came to his store together on or about the day of the accident, and were both selling the plows, but he summed up the situation in his final statement as follows:
It further seems clear from the evidence that Pence had no authority or control over Stillwell, either as to the places to be visited or as to the operation of the car, and that Pence's salary was a fixed sum for the year, and not dependent upon the result of the particular business in which he was engaged at the time of his death.
The accident occurred on December 12, 1919, at a point in the unincorporated village of Alberta, where the main line of the Virginian Railroad crosses a public road Which is known In the village as Main street. The population in the village numbers about 150, and the crossing is very generally used by the people there, as well as by others having occasion to cross the tracks at that point. The road crosses the tracks approximately at right angles. The car in which Pence, and Stillwell were riding was coming south. At the crossing, which is about 600 yards west of the station at Alberta, the company maintains three tracks nearly parallel with each other and running east and west. The first, counting from the north, is a spur track, known as the Wheeler track, next is the passing track, and next the main line. Just east of the crossing, on the north side, there is a cut, the land on that side of the road rising gradually from the north until it reaches a height of several feet at the crossing. On the day of the accident there were several piles of lumber along the top of this cut, and two box cars were standing on the Wheeler track west of the crossing and within 3 or 4 feet of the county road. These obstructions—the cut. the lumber, and the box cars—obscured the view of the two other tracks to such an extent that Pence and Stillwell could not have seen a train coming from the west until they had passed the end of the box cars. In making this statement of the situation the figures we use are practically correct, but we have not undertaken to attain mathematical precision in this respect. The distance between the south rail of the Wheeler track and the north rail of the passing track was 25 feet, and the distance from the south rail of the Wheeler track to the north rail of the main track was 40 feet. A Ford runabout is 11 feet 3 inches long, and ' the back of the driver's seat is 7 feet from the extreme front end of the car. The tracks are perfectly straight from the crossing west for a distance of 1, 728 feet. When the occupants of the car reached a point, which for convenience we shall call A, where their position on the seat was about 3 feet south of the south rail of the Wheeler track, they had a clear view of the main line to the west for a distance of 200 feet. With the occupants of the car in that position the rear wheels of the car were between the rails of the Wheeler track and the front wheels were 15 feet from the north rail of the passing track, and 28 feet from the north rail of the maid track. When the car had moved forward 13 feet from the point A to a point which weshall call B, Its occupants had a clear view of the track to the west (except as obstructed by the train) for a distance of 840 feet. In that position the front wheels of the car were about 2 feet from the north rail of the passing track, and about 15 feet from the north rail of the main track. At a point which we shall call C, in the center of the passing track, the occupants of the car had a clear view of the main track (except as obstructed by the train) for 1, 726 feet to the west. Their front wheels were then about 4 feet from the main track. As the car moved from A to C, the view gradually extended; and it is perfectly manifest that there was a point between the Wheeler track and the passing track where the car could have been stopped free from danger from either track, and where the occupants would have had a clear view of the main track west for a distance of more than 840 feet.
As the automobile approached the Wheeler track from the north, Stillwell drove very slowly, and finally stopped just before he reached that track. He looked and listened for a train, but saw and heard none, and then proceeded across the track in low gear at a speed of about 5 miles an hour. He described his movements at this point as follows:
as the other.
The steering wheel, and hence the driver's position, was on the left, and Pence was sitting on the right-hand side. The curtains on the car extended from the back of the top toward the front, and came down
from the top flush with the front of the seat on which these parties were riding. It affirmatively appears...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Painter v. Lingon
...361. It will be noted that the opinion in the Zell Case was written by Judge Kelly, who later wrote the opinion in Director General v. Pence, 135 Va. 329, 345, 116 S.E. 351, where he defined 'joint enterprise' more accurately thus: 'But the 'joint enterprise' which will render the contribut......
-
Hancock v. N. & W. Ry. Co.
...Kelly, who delivered the opinion of the court in the Zell Case and certainly should know what he intended to decide, in Director General Pence's Admx., 135 Va. 329, on page 345, 116 S.E. 351, 356, said: "But the `joint enterprise' which will render the contributory negligence of a driver im......
-
Davis v. Powell
...a defendant guilty of any negligence which might be based upon a breach of any duties charged in the declaration, Director General Pence's Adm'x, 135 Va. 329, 116 S.E. 351, when the court has given all the instructions asked for by the plaintiff setting out his theory of his case and no men......
-
Hancock v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co
...Kelly, who delivered the opinion of the court in the Zell Case, and certainly should know what he intended to decide, in Director General v. Pence's Adm'x, 135 Va. 329, on page 345, 116 S. E. 351, 356, said: "But the 'joint enterprise' which will render the contributory negligence of a driv......