Griffie v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 October 1906 |
| Citation | 96 S.W. 750 |
| Parties | GRIFFIE v. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pope County; Wm. L. Moose, Judge.
Action by Frederick Griffie against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Appellant sues appellee for personal injuries, alleging various grounds of negligence. Appellee denied all material allegations, and set up the contributory negligence of appellant "in going upon or near defendant's tracks at the time and place he was injured without exercising the proper precaution to protect himself from danger." After the evidence was heard the appellee moved the court to direct a verdict in its favor, which the court granted.
U. L. Meade, for appellant. Oscar L. Miles and L. P. Miles, for appellee.
WOOD, J. (after stating the facts).
Appellant was an old resident of the town of Russellville, Ark., and was familiar with the crossing of Jefferson street, where his injury occurred. On the day of the injury he approached the crossing, going from his home along a path that went in a southeast course to the crossing of Jefferson street and the railroad. A cotton platform which obstructed his view of the railroad tracks intervened until he ascended the dump of the railroad grade and came near the tracks at the crossing. He looked west towards the depot, and there was a part of a train. He thought there was no danger, "looked east, and then got knocked down." Appellant did not stop. He "picked his way a little" to keep out of the mud." "Loose dirt" had been dumped on the ground to walk on, and it was soft. From the time appellant got upon the dump near the railroad tracks there was no obstruction to his vision in the direction of the engine that struck him. At that time he was looking toward the east. Some of the witnesses say he "had his head down." He came so close to the track that the engine knocked him down, and the second little wheel in front crushed his foot. There was some proof tending to show that the railway company was guilty of negligence. But appellant was also guilty of contributory negligence. As he approached the railway he should have looked in both directions for trains, and should have continued to look until the danger was passed. He was walking slowly and the train was moving slowly. There was nothing to obstruct his vision after getting upon the dump within a few feet of the tracks. He should have surveyed the situation, instead of walking headlong upon or so near the track as to be struck. Contributory negligence follows as matter of law under such circumstances. Railway v. Crabtree (Ark.) 62 S. W. 64; Railway v. Martin, 61 Ark. 549, 33 S. W. 1070; Railway v. Martin, 62 Ark. 158, 34 S. W. 545; Railway v. Blewitt, 65 Ark. 238, 45 S. W. 548; Railway v. Johnson (Ark.) 86 S. W. 282; Railway v. Baskins (Ark.) 93 S. W. 757; Tiffin v. Railway (Ark.) 93 S. W. 564; Scott v. Railway (Ark.) 95 S. W. 490. Therefore appellee was entitled to a peremptory verdict, unless, having discovered appellant's perilous situation, it failed to exercise such care as an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the circumstances to prevent the apprehended danger.
The engine was switching; it was running about four to six miles an hour. The engineer said he did not think it was much faster than a "pert walk" for a man. The engine was equipped with air. The engineer "judged" that he could stop the train running from 4 to 6 miles per hour at a distance of 30 feet. He could not see the appellant from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial