Green v. Atlanta & C. A. L. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 February 1925
• Docket Number: 11671.
• Parties: GREEN v. ATLANTA & C. AIR LINE RY. CO. ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

126 S.E. 441

131 S.C. 124

GREEN v. ATLANTA & C. AIR LINE RY. CO. ET AL.

No. 11671.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 3, 1925

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; S.W G. Shipp, Judge.

Action by R. F. Green against the Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Railway Company and another. From order overruling demurrer to complaint, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The plaintiff alleges in his complaint:

(1) That the defendant Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Railway Company is and was at the times hereinafter mentioned a corporation organized and existing under the laws of South Carolina, and owns a line of railway extending from the North Carolina state line near Grover through Gaffney, Spartanburg Hayne, Greenville, and Seneca, S. C., and beyond to the Georgia state line, and in connection with said railway stations, turnouts, yards, etc.

(2) That the defendant Southern Railway Company is and was at the times hereinafter mentioned a corporation organized and existing under the laws of one of the states of the Union and at the times hereinafter mentioned was engaged as agent or lessee in maintaining and operating the above-mentioned line of railway, with its turnouts, yards, etc., as a common carrier of freight and passengers for hire.

(3) That Hayne, near Spartanburg, S. C., is a junction point where the Asheville, Spartanburg & Columbia line of railway also operated by the Southern Railway Company, joins the Charlotte-Atlanta main line above mentioned.

(4) That at Hayne there is maintained and operated a very large freight yard, where through freight trains are made up, and also where through freight trains are brought to be broken up and made into new trains to distribute freight bound to or toward Asheville, Columbia, Atlanta, Salisbury, Spencer, and other points, and where large numbers of loaded freight cars accumulate and lie over pending the breaking up and remaking up of trains; that also a transfer shed in connection with said yards is maintained and operated at Hayne, where the valuable freight in less than carload lots is unloaded and stored to be reloaded for shipment to ultimate destination; that said yards are very long, having several lead tracks for the making up and breaking up of trains, with all the bad order, storage, shifting tracks, and cross-overs necessary and proper to the operation of such yards.

(5) That the defendants, for the protection of their property and the protection of property being transported by them, and their employees engaged in handling and transferring such property while in transit, and while lying over to be diverted, maintained a force of special officers and agents.

(6) That the vast accumulation of loaded freight cars in the Hayne yards and the storage of large quantities of freight in the transfer shed at Hayne operated as a great temptation to the evil disposed, and induced thieves, robbers, and desperadoes to frequent and resort to the said Hayne yards for the purposes of looting, thieving, robbing, car breaking, and the perpetration of all manner of kindred misdemeanors and felonies, and who were, as a rule, prepared and inclined to prevent detection and make sure escape at the cost of human life.

(7) That on and prior to February 27, 1922, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant Southern Railway Company as a yard conductor in its yards at Hayne, where it was his duty in the course of his employment to break up the incoming freight trains left there for that purpose, and to make them up into outgoing freight trains for the various points in all directions, as hereinabove indicated; that frequently plaintiff's tour of duty fell in the nighttime, the work of making up and breaking up the trains in the yards being continuous throughout day and night.

(8) That some time prior to February 27, 1922, the plaintiff complained to his superiors that, by reason of the increasing numbers of outlaws, thieves, and desperadoes that were beginning to accustom themselves to rendezvous in the yards for the purposes of pillage, thievery, car breaking, and robbery, it was becoming unsafe for the employees at work in the yards during the nighttime, and was advised that such unsafety was known, but would be remedied; that the conditions hereinabove detailed were, or should have been, known to the defendants and their officers.

(9) That, under the division system of the defendants, the Hayne yards are located in the Spartanburg Division, which includes the Hayne yards and all line of railway from Greenville to Alston, there being no other yard in said division remotely approaching the Hayne yards in size or in the amount and value of freight stored, transferred, and handled.

(10) That prior to the time of plaintiff's complaint of unsafe conditions obtaining at Hayne the defendants had maintained only two special officers and one special agent for the division, whose duty it was to protect the property from thieves, car breakers, and robbers, as well as the employees of the company, and such number was not adequate to the proper policing of the Hayne yards alone, and by reason of the inadequacy the outlaws frequenting the Hayne yards were encouraged and increased in number; that the plaintiff relied upon the assurance given when he complained that the matter would be corrected.

(11) That on February 27, 1922, the plaintiff's tour of duty as yard conductor in the Hayne yards commenced at 4 o'clock in the afternoon to continue until 12 o'clock midnight.

(12) That at about 11:30 o'clock at night, while engaged with what is known as the south lead engine, in making up a freight train for Spencer, N. C., and beyond, and while going into the northern part of the yards to pick up certain cars on track No. ______, the plaintiff unintentionally surprised a gang of desperadoes, evidently engaged in car breaking and robbery, who, upon his approach and their apparent inevitable discovery, opened fire with pistols upon this plaintiff, and inflicted serious gunshot wounds, from the result of which the plaintiff for months languished in the hospital, suffered continuous agonizing pains, was compelled to undergo several serious operations, and incur tremendous expense in the way of medical, hospital, and physicians' bills, and sustained injuries permanent in their nature, hopelessly disfiguring and crippling the plaintiff, causing his leg to be weakened and shortened by several inches, and utterly disabling him physically from pursuing his former employment or engaging in any active work, and, in view of his limited educational advantages, permanently and almost completely disqualifying him for any gainful calling, pursuit, or employment.

(13) That the plaintiff's aforesaid injuries and sufferings were directly and proximately due to the negligence of the defendants in failing to provide the plaintiff with a safe place in which to do the work he was required to do, in that:

(a) They knowingly caused and permitted the Hayne yards to become a resort for thieves and robbers, prepared and inclined to prevent detection and secure escape, by murder, if need be, the existence of such condition being directly due to the accumulation of vast numbers of loaded freight cars and vast quantities of valuable freight in said yards, and, by inaction, permitting it to be discovered by the evil disposed that valuable property easy to be stolen and carried away was constantly and continuously being placed and kept throughout the great length of the Hayne yards in the nighttime in a situation that it could not be adequately guarded by a force of only three men.

(b) In failing to make reasonable provision for even the protection of the property situated and kept in the yards, so as to discourage the would-be thieves and robbers, thereby emboldening them and increasing their number and activities, the failure to adequately protect the property resulting in directly hazarding the life and limb of every yard employee.

(c) In failing, after knowledge of unsafe conditions, to provide a proper police protection for the property and employees in the yards, their neglect in protecting the property directly operating as an invitation to the evil disposed.

(d) In not providing a sufficient force of officers and agents to police the yards, protect the property and employees, and rid the situation of its characteristics, which may be phrased as an attractive nuisance to thieves, robbers and desperadoes.

(e) In not increasing the force of officers and agents, after knowledge of its inadequacy to protect their employees and property in the Hayne yards, and after admitting such inadequacy and promising remedy, the Hayne yards being located outside of any municipally policed area.

(f) In not adequately providing for the lighting of said yards in the nighttime, the yards being very long and the numerous tracks for storage, etc., being practically parallel throughout the length of the yards, and being nearly always completely occupied by loaded freight cars, and...