Dudley & Watson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 September 1920 |
| Docket Number | 24. |
| Citation | 103 S.E. 905,180 N.C. 34 |
| Parties | DUDLEY & WATSON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. ET AL. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Beaufort County; Cranmer, Judge.
Action by Dudley & Watson against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. No error.
It is incumbent upon a railroad company to take such reasonable precautions as are necessary to the safety of travelers at public crossings, so that the failure of the railroad to provide gates or automatic alarm at such crossings may be negligence, though the city in which the crossing was situated required only a flagman.
This is an action to recover damages sustained by an automobile in crossing the defendant's track on Second street Washington, N.C. The automobile was going west on said street, which the railroad track crosses about 200 feet from Gladden street. The space between the two streets is occupied by a ware house. The engine came out from behind the warehouse. There was evidence tending to show that it was then too late to avoid the collision. There was also evidence for the defendant that the engine bell was being rung, and that a watchman was in the street, displaying a large sign with the word "Stop" on it, and that it could have been seen by plaintiffs. Upon the conflicting evidence the jury found that the injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant, and that the plaintiffs did not contribute thereto, and assessed the damages at $600.
Small MacLean, Bragaw & Rodman, of Washington, N. C., for appellants.
Ward & Grimes, of Washington, N. C., for appellees.
We do not think the exceptions to the evidence require any discussion. It was in evidence that the watchman was placed by the defendant at this crossing with the approval of the governing body of the city. It was not error for the court to permit the plaintiffs to offer evidence that there was no automatic alarm, or gates, at the crossing, and the court properly left it to the jury to say upon all the attendant circumstances whether the railroad company was negligent in not erecting gates. It was incumbent upon the defendant to take such reasonable precautions as were necessary to the safety of travelers at public crossings. 22 R. C. L. 988. This was a question of fact for the jury. That the city authorities assented that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caldwell v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... that both of said streets cross at street levels the line ... of the Southern Railway Company formerly known as the ... Co., 213 N.C. 609, 197 ... S.E. 189; Quinn v. Atlantic & Yadkin R. Co., 213 N.C. 48, ... 195 S.E. 85; Cole v ... 484, 199 S.E. 704; Coltrain v ... Atlantic Coast" Line R. Co., 216 N.C. 263, 4 S.E.2d 853 ... \xC2" ... the defendant Railway Company. Dudley v. Atlantic Coast ... Line R. Co., 180 N.C. 34, 103 S.E ... ...
-
Harper v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., Inc.
... ... This was a matter for the ... jury upon the evidence. In Dudley v. R. R., 180 N.C ... 34, 103 S.E. 905, this court said: It was not ... ...
-
Moseley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... [150 S.E. 190.] ... night. Grand Trunk R. R. v. Ives, 144 U.S. 408, 12 ... S.Ct. 679, 36 L.Ed. 485; Dudley v. Railroad, 180 ... N.C. 34, 103 S.E. 905; Blum v. Railroad, 187 N.C ... 640, 122 S.E. 562; Finch v. Railroad, supra ... ...
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Withers
...as were necessary to the safety of travelers at public crossings. This was a question of fact for the jury. ' Dudley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 180 N.C. 34, 103 S.E. 905. This defendant realized that 'due care' required it to throw out the flare at first, that due care required a watchm......