Geddings v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1912
• Citation: 75 S.E. 284,91 S.C. 477
• Parties: GEDDINGS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

75 S.E. 284

91 S.C. 477

GEDDINGS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 4, 1912

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; R. E Copes, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Henry R. Geddings against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant named appeals. Affirmed.

See also, 91 S.C. 350, 74 S.E. 753.

Instruction objected to in the eighth exception on account of the italicized words: "Willfulness, gentlemen of the jury is the intentional doing of some act, or the failure to do some act, according to one's own will, regardless of the right of others, when the party knows, or is under legal obligation to know, that the doing or the failing to do such act might cause injury to other persons."

The material parts of the complaint are as follows:

"(2) That at the times hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff was working for the defendant Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company as one of its section force.

"(3) That on or about the 23d day of August, 1910, the plaintiff was working with said section force on the railroad right of way of the said Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company between Alcolu and Manning, near what is known as the 'Sixteen Mile Post.' That the plaintiff and the other section force were engaged in clearing off the right of way. That while so engaged a freight train came along, coming from toward Sumter and going toward Manning. That said train was running at the speed of about 30 miles an hour. That, as said train approached, the plaintiff turned his back toward the way from which the train was coming, in order to prevent cinders and smoke from getting into his eyes. That the plaintiff got out of the way of the train and stood some eight or ten feet from the railroad track, with his back turned as aforesaid, and that, while standing there and without any notice to the plaintiff whatsoever, the agent of the defendant Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company threw from said train, under the said defendant's instructions, what is known as a 'cross-arm' for telegraph poles, and struck the plaintiff below the knee on the left leg, knocked him down, and broke his left leg, and knocked the plaintiff into the ditch along said right of way. The plaintiff alleges that under the instructions of the defendant Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company that said cross-arm and other cross-arms were thrown off of the train wherever needed, while going at its ordinary speed, for the purpose of saving time, and not stopping where it was necessary to put off cross-arms for the telegraph poles. The plaintiff alleges that all of this was done in a willful, wanton, negligent, and reckless manner by the defendant Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company.

"(4) The plaintiff alleges that the defendants knew that the right of way of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company at the point herein alleged, and other points, were constantly and with the knowledge and consent of the said Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company traveled by the public, as well as being worked upon by the section hands of the defendant, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, and knew that the throwing off of said cross-arms while the train was running was dangerous and liable to injure the traveling public, and especially the section hands of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, by the throwing off of the cross-arms in the manner herein alleged. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants knew that he was standing on the right of way where he was required to be in the performance of his duties to the defendant Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company at the time he was hurt aforesaid. That the defendant Alger Hawkins saw the plaintiff standing on the right of way as aforesaid, or by the slightest exercise of care could have seen the plaintiff and avoided the injury aforesaid, but without regard to the plaintiff's rights, and in a willful, wanton, reckless, and negligent manner intentionally threw said cross-arm and struck and injured the plaintiff as aforesaid. The plaintiff further alleges that it was negligence on the part of the defendants in running said train at such a rapid rate of speed, and while so running, requiring and allowing the throwing off of

...