Ginn v. U.S. Railroad Administration

• Citation: 103 S.E. 548,114 S.C. 236
• Decision Date: 28 June 1920
• Docket Number: 10459.
• Parties: GINN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION ET AL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

103 S.E. 548

114 S.C. 236

GINN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION ET AL.

No. 10459.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 28, 1920

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Hampton County; I. W Bowman, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Verdi H. Ginn and husband against the United States Railroad Administration and others. Judgment for plaintiffs and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

F. B Grier, of Greenwood, and Randolph Murdaugh and J. W. Manuel both of Hampton, for appellants.

George Warren, of Hampton, for respondents.

WATTS J.

This is an action to recover damages on account of the alleged negligent and willful failure of defendant to open its station at Varnville at the proper time before arrival of afternoon train, on Sunday, February 9, 1919, to accommodate the plaintiff Mrs. Ginn, who was being taken to a hospital at Charleston, she being sick, for treatment, and failure to furnish room and heat after waiting room had been opened; whereby it is alleged plaintiff was exposed to a hailstorm, that made her condition worse, by reason of the waiting room not being opened at the proper time. The case was tried before Judge Bowman and a jury. At the close of the evidence the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict, both as to actual and punitive damages. This motion was refused and the case submitted to the jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,000. After entry of judgment defendant appealed.

The exceptions are three in number. The exceptions 1 and 2 are:

(1) His honor committed error in not directing a verdict in favor of the defendant Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, on the first ground submitted, to wit: "That there is no testimony tending to establish actionable negligence as a proximate cause of plaintiff's alleged injury"--the error being there was no testimony tending to establish any actionable negligence on the part of the defendant as the proximate cause of plaintiff's alleged injury.

(2) It was error in his honor not to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, on the second ground submitted, to wit: "That the testimony shows that the depot was open for a reasonable length of time before the arrival of the train; that there was no notice or intimation of any kind whatsoever given to the defendant's agents or employés or servants that plaintiff was ill or sick, and, in the absence of notice or knowledge, they were not required to use special attention or care for a sick patient, but only such reasonable care as the law devolves upon them with reference to passengers generally, and the testimony also shows that that duty had been fully met and complied with"--the error being:

(a) The testimony established beyond question or dispute, and as a matter of law, that the depot was opened and remained open for a reasonable length of time before the arrival of the train, and that all passengers, including plaintiff, had ample time to procure tickets and board the train.

(b) There was no notice to the defendant, and it was without knowledge or information of any kind, that plaintiff was ill

...