Ferebee v. Norfolk Southern R. Co

Citation163 N. c. 351, 79 S.E. 685
Case DateOctober 29, 1913
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

79 S.E. 685
(163 N. c. 351)

FEREBEE.
v.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 29, 1913.


1. Master and Servant (§ 111*)—Injuries to Servant—Railroads—Negligence.

Plaintiff, a baggageman, while passing out onto the steps of a baggage car at night, as his train was moving into a station, fell from the car owing to the steps having been torn away after the train left its starting point. Some weeks prior to the accident, the railroad company placed and maintained a large number of boxes unsecured on a trestle platform, about 12 or 14 inches from a passing car. On the night in question one or two of the boxes had toppled over from jar or other cause, and struck and tore away the steps of the car. Held, that defendant was guilty of actionable negligence in leaving the boxes where they might collide with a passing train, and that such act was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 215-217, 255; Dec. Dig. § 111.*]

2. Master and Servant (§ 129*)—Injuries to Servant — Proximate Cause —Negligence—Vis Major.

Where defendant railroad company was negligent in placing a quantity of boxes near the track where they might topple over and strike parts of a moving train, as they did, breaking the steps of a baggage car and resulting in injury to the baggageman, such negligence being the proximate cause of the injury, the railroad company was not relieved from liability because an unexpected or unusual storm might also have contributed to the accident.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 257-263; Dec. Dig. § 129.*]

3. Damages (§ 53*) — Personal Injuries — Mental Suffering.

In an action for injuries to a servant, mental suffering, consisting of worry concerning the welfare of his wife and child during the period when he was unable to work, is too remote to constitute a proper element of damage.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Damages, Cent. Dig. §§ 100, 255; Dec. Dig. § 53.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Ferguson, Judge.

Action by W. G. Ferebee against the Norfolk Southern Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. New trial for rehearing on the issue of damages.

The action was brought under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (Act June 11, 1906, c. 3073, 34 Stat. 232 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1316]); the train on which plaintiff was employed and injured being engaged at the time in interstate commerce, and was submitted and determined on the following issues and verdict:

"(1) Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

"(2) What is the whole amount of damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff? Answer: $15,000.

"(3) Did the plaintiff by his own negligence contribute to his injury, as alleged in the answer? Answer: No.

"(4) What amount, if any, shall be deducted from the damages sustained by the plaintiff as the proportion thereof attributable to the plaintiff's own negligence? Answer: —"

R. N. Simms, of Raleigh, for appellant.

Ward & Thompson, of Elizabeth City, and Douglass & Douglass and W. H. Lyon, Jr., all of Raleigh, and W. W. Elliott, of Norfolk, Va., for appellee.

HOKE J. We find no reversible error affecting the determination of the first and third issues. There was evidence tending to show that, at the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, P.A., No. 177PA88
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • August 29, 1990
    ...a private mental institution rejected on the ground that her damages were "too remote" to allow recovery); Ferebee v. R. R., 163 N.C. 351, 79 S.E. 685 (1913) (action brought under Federal Employers' Liability Act; mother could not recover for her concern, that her child was not yet educated......
  • Ridge v. Norfolk Southern R. Co, (No. 489.)
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • December 16, 1914
    ...and they seem to be practically of universal acceptance. The recent decision in Ferebee v. Railroad Co., 163 N. C. 351, at page 354, 79 S. E. 685, at page 686, seems to cover this case completely. Justice Hoke there says: "It was urged for defendant that the evidence tending to show the pre......
  • Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, P.A., No. 8610SC942
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • March 15, 1988
    ...anxiety was for safety of another, to wit, an "imaginary and non-existent child"); Ferebee v. Norfolk So. R.R. Co., 163 N.C. 351, 355, 79 S.E. 685, 686 (1913) (where plaintiff testified he worried about his physical injury's effect on family, court excluded testimony since damage must be re......
  • Olan Mills, Inc. of Tenn. v. Cannon Aircraft Executive Terminal, Inc., No. 279
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • May 1, 1968
    ...181 N.C. 393, 107 S.E. 312; Ridge v. Norfolk Southern R.R., 167 N.C. 510, 83 S.E. 762; Ferebee v. Norfolk Southern R.R., 163 N.C. 351, 79 S.E. 685. We are of the opinion that the storm which occurred in the Charlotte area on the afternoon of July 23, 1962 was not so extraordinary that the h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, P.A., No. 177PA88
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • August 29, 1990
    ...a private mental institution rejected on the ground that her damages were "too remote" to allow recovery); Ferebee v. R. R., 163 N.C. 351, 79 S.E. 685 (1913) (action brought under Federal Employers' Liability Act; mother could not recover for her concern, that her child was not yet educated......
  • Ridge v. Norfolk Southern R. Co, (No. 489.)
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • December 16, 1914
    ...and they seem to be practically of universal acceptance. The recent decision in Ferebee v. Railroad Co., 163 N. C. 351, at page 354, 79 S. E. 685, at page 686, seems to cover this case completely. Justice Hoke there says: "It was urged for defendant that the evidence tending to show the pre......
  • Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, P.A., No. 8610SC942
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • March 15, 1988
    ...anxiety was for safety of another, to wit, an "imaginary and non-existent child"); Ferebee v. Norfolk So. R.R. Co., 163 N.C. 351, 355, 79 S.E. 685, 686 (1913) (where plaintiff testified he worried about his physical injury's effect on family, court excluded testimony since damage must be re......
  • Olan Mills, Inc. of Tenn. v. Cannon Aircraft Executive Terminal, Inc., No. 279
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • May 1, 1968
    ...181 N.C. 393, 107 S.E. 312; Ridge v. Norfolk Southern R.R., 167 N.C. 510, 83 S.E. 762; Ferebee v. Norfolk Southern R.R., 163 N.C. 351, 79 S.E. 685. We are of the opinion that the storm which occurred in the Charlotte area on the afternoon of July 23, 1962 was not so extraordinary that the h......
  • 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