Glass v. Memphis & C.R. Co.
Decision Date | 10 November 1891 |
Citation | 94 Ala. 581,10 So. 215 |
Parties | GLASS v. MEMPHIS & C. R. CO. MEMPHIS & C. R. CO. v. GLASS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Cross-appeals from city court of Decatur; W. H. SIMPSON, Judge. Affirmed.
Action by Samuel Glass, administrator, against the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company for damages for killing plaintiff's intestate. Judgment for plaintiff for $460. Plaintiff and defendant both appeal.
This suit was brought by Samuel Glass, as administrator of his mother, Martha Glass, deceased, to recover $30,000 as damages for the alleged wrongful and negligent killing of the intestate by the defendant. Defendant pleaded the contributory negligence of the intestate, and plaintiff replied that defendant was guilty of gross, willful, wanton and reckless negligence. The proof showed that on the 18th day of March, 1889, plaintiff's intestate was returning to her son's house-boat on the river, from the business portion of the town; that she came to the corner of Ferry and Market streets, and from there went diagonally across an open lot, with only one or two small houses on it, by a footpath till she reached the railroad track; that she then walked down said track a distance of from 20 feet to 60 yards, and got on defendant's trestle across a large gully; and that she had walked about two-thirds of the way across this trestle when defendant's train, coming from behind knocked her off into the ditch below. The testimony also showed that the intestate could have gone home by Market street, and thereby have avoided walking on the track except at the street crossing; that the distance by this route was a little longer than the one adopted by the intestate, but had a bridge across the ditch, erected by the city for the use of vehicles and pedestrians. The evidence also showed that at that time a person crossing the open block going towards the trestle could see a train approaching the trestle for a hundred yards or more, and could hear it a greater distance that a person getting on the track at the point where it intersected the footpath could see a train approaching as far back as Canal street, which was the top of a "pretty steep" grade, and was distant from the trestle between 1,500 and 1,600 feet. None of the witnesses saw Mrs. Glass as she stepped from the footpath upon the track, though she was seen by some while approaching the track, by others on the track approaching the trestle, and by still others when on the trestle. All testified that she did not seem to be watching or listening for the train, and that she walked very slowly while on the trestle. The track was laid along what had been, before the war, Waterstreet; but this street had not been used since the war for vehicles, and, "so far as the city was concerned, was abandoned." Since the side track was built there in 1886 there was no place for pedestrians to walk except on the roadbed, and in crossing the trestle on foot one had to step from timber to timber. The train was being operated by an engineer, a fireman, and three brakemen; one of the latter-and foreman of the crew-being stationed at the rear end of the front coal-car; another on the third car from the front,-a box-car; and the third on the car next to the engine; this being the ordinary and general number and arrangement of the crew on a switch train. The whistle blew for Arrantz's mill,-1,170 feet from the trestle,-and the train stopped (or slowed up considerably) there, in order that the "draw," going down to the river, might be raised. Some of the witnesses state the train came to a stop, but all agree that it slowed up considerably. The length of the train was between 220 and 250 feet, and that of the trestle 75 or 80 feet. The train hands testified that, as soon as they observed Mrs. Glass on the track, (which was just as they passed Jervis' mill,) they gave the signal to the engineer to stop, and began to put on brakes; that the whistle was blown, the engine reversed, the brakes set, and the track sanded, and that they used every means in their power to stop the train. The witnesses, without contradiction, (except by a negro man, who was on a steam-boat, 400 or 500 yards up the river,) state that the whistle was blown repeatedly for the intestate to get off the track; and that the train hands motioned to her, and hallooed at her. Most of the witnesses testified that the whistle began to sound the cattle-alarm, and the train hands began to try to stop the train when the front car was about Jervis' mill, which was about 600 feet from the trestle; and that they continued so to do until plaintiff's intestate was knocked off. The train ran about the length of the train after the intestate was struck, the engine stopping directly over her.
On the examination of the witnesses for the plaintiff, the plaintiff sought to introduce evidence tending to show that it was the custom of people in the neighborhood of the accident to walk over the trestle, and that it was used as a passage-way. On examination of the plaintiff himself, he was asked: "Did you know your mother's habits with respect to railroad trains,-of carefulness or carelessness?" The defendant objected to this question as irrelevant. The court sustained the objection. The plaintiff also sought to introduce testimony to the effect that the south end of Well street over which the trestle where the accident occurred was built, was still used as a street. The court in its general charge instructed the jury, among other things, that "the railroad company must be presumed to be in the rightful possession of the street along which it was laid, and therefore was not a trespasser;" and also that "the deceased was at the time of the accident a trespasser on the defendant's track." The plaintiff duly excepted to these portions of the general charge. At the request of the defendant the court gave the following written charges to the jury: The plaintiff excepted to the court's refusal to give, among others, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alabama & Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. v. Thornhill
...following: Totarella v. N. Y., etc., 65 N.Y.S. 1044; Hubbard v. Town of Mason, 60 Iowa 400; Georgia, etc., v. Evans, 87 Ga. 673; Glass v. Memphis, 94 Ala. 581; Eaton Telegraph Co., 68 Me. 63-67; Chaise v. Maine, 77 Me. 62; Barrows v. Trieber, 21 Maruland 320; Aiken v. Holyoke, 184 Mass. 269......
-
Spiking v. Consolidated Ry. & Power Co.
...v. Railroad, 93 Ia. 565, 61 N.W. 1059; Railroad v. McClesh, 115 F. 268; Railroad v. Converse, 139 U.S. 469; Glass v. Railroad, 94 A. 581, 10 So. 215; Chase v. Railroad, 77 Me. 62, 52 Am. Rep. Carr v. Railroad, 163 Mass. 360, 40 N.E. 185; Towle v. Pacific Improvement Co., 98 Cal.--) The sett......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Johns
...circumspection, he is never a trespasser, because he is never without this qualified right to pass over.' Glass v. Memphis & Charleston Railroad Co., 94 Ala. 581, 587, 10 So. 215, 217. See also the following: Stringer v. Alabama Mineral Railroad Co., 99 Ala. 397, 13 So. 75; Alabama Great So......
-
Callaway v. Griffin
...and the doctrines above quoted from the Womack and Glass Cases [M. & C. R. R. Co. v. Womack, 84 Ala. 149, 4 So. 618; Glass v. M. & C. R. Co., 94 Ala. 581, 10 So. 215] must now be regarded as qualified by these Haley v. Kansas City, etc., R. R. Co., 113 Ala. 640, 21 So. 357; A. G. S. R. R. C......