Harrison v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | 15209. |
| Parties | HARRISON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al. (two cases). CRADDOCK v. SAME. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Harley & Harley, of Barnwell, and Douglas McKay and J. B McCutcheon, both of Columbia, for appellants.
Brown & Watts and Blatt & Fales, all of Barnwell, for respondents.
The appeal involves three cases growing out of a railroad crossing accident in the town of Barnwell. which resulted in the death of Mr. R. W. Harrison and his wife, Mrs. Hattie Harrison, both of whom at the time of the accident were traveling in a Model T Ford automobile, driven by Mr Harrison.
The two major actions were brought under Lord Campbell's Act for wrongful death, and the third action was brought under the survival statute for damage to "the automobile. These three cases by agreement were consolidated and tried together. Judgments were rendered against the defendants in the amount of $10,000 actual damages in each of the cases for wrongful death, and for $100 actual damages in the property damage suit. The trial judge, upon motion for a new trial reduced the verdicts in the death cases to $5,000 each, and these reductions were duly accepted of record.
The complaint contains the usual specifications of negligence appertaining to railroad crossing cases, including failure on the part of the train crew to keep a reasonable lookout for travelers; in running the train in question over the crossing at a high and dangerous rate of speed and in excess of the speed permitted by an ordinance of the town of Barnwell, and at a greater rate of speed than was reasonable and proper at the time and place; and failing and omitting to give statutory crossing signals. The complaint likewise charged common-law negligence.
The defense insisted upon in the lower Court, and urged here upon appeal, is that the Harrisons, husband and wife, were guilty of gross and wilful negligence in approaching and entering upon the crossing, which negligence contributed as a proximate cause to the fatal accident.
On September 2, 1939, about midday, Mr. and Mrs. Harrison, both of whom were over seventy years of age, were leaving Barnwell for their farm home in the country. They drove along Charleston Street (State Highway No. 64), and their way lay across the tracks of the defendant railroad company. They were in normal health and spirits, and there is no evidence that either of them suffered from impaired sight or hearing. At the crossing in question, with which they were familiar the railroad tracks run east and west, and the street or highway on which the Harrisons were traveling crosses the tracks at an angle of seventy degrees. On this appeal the reviewing Court must take the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict and give it the strongest probative force of which it will admit. Hence, although the testimony is in conflict thereabout, we adopt that of the plaintiff's witnesses to the effect that the train crew failed to give the statutory crossing signals, or any signal at all, giving notice of the approach of the train to the crossing; that the passenger train which collided with the automobile was running at a speed of about thirty to thirty-five miles per hour,--in violation of the twelve-mile ordinance of the city of Barnwell; and that the train was about two hours behind its scheduled time.
The Harrisons approached the crossing with their automobile under control and with the brakes in good condition, at a speed estimated to be ten to fifteen miles per hour. It is claimed that certain obstructions on their left either partially or completely obstructed their view of the train which was coming from that direction. Several photographs and a diagram of the crossing and its surroundings were introduced in evidence. It is admitted by the defendants that the view of the Harrisons to the left was completely obstructed until the automobile reached a point on the highway about fifty feet from the main line track.
The first obstruction shown by the evidence, which of necessity had to be cleared before a traveler could see anything to the left, was an oil house of the Standard Oil Company enclosed by a wire fence located about sixty-five feet from the track. A tank oil car of the defendant railroad company was on a bulk service track adjacent to the oil company building and between it and the main line tracks, which further tended to narrow the line of vision to the left. Between the service track and the main line there was a cross-road or alley, estimated to be about fifteen feet wide, and running parallel with the railroad, which connected Charleston Street crossing with Marlboro Street crossing about 460 feet distant to the left. At the point where this connecting street left Charleston Street, upon which the Harrisons were traveling, a large truck was parked, and the testimony shows that in this cross street there were several other parked automobiles and trucks of various kinds, which plaintiff contends made it difficult, if not impossible, for the Harrisons to get an extended view of the track to the left as they approached the crossing. A cotton gin, located on this cross street about midway between the two crossings, was in operation, and, at the peak of the ginning season, was making considerable noise. One of the witnesses for the plaintiff testified that when the automobile reached a point on the highway about fifty feet from the crossing, he saw Mr. Harrison look to his left and then proceed on to the crossing. As he got on the track the defendant's train coming from his left, struck the automobile between the left front wheel and the left rear wheel. The automobile lodged on the cowcatcher, and in some manner was carried sixty yards or more before the train was stopped. Mr. Harrison died instantly. Mrs. Harrison survived about one hour. Divers witnesses for the plaintiff testified that the view to the left was well nigh obstructed. Witnesses for the defense testified to the contrary, and said that from a point fifty feet from the track there was nothing to obscure vision to the left.
There was testimony on behalf of the defendants tending to show that the train had slowed preparatory to stopping at the Barnwell passenger station, which was just a few feet West of the highway, and that the defendants had fully complied with the statute law by blowing the whistle and ringing the bell. Two witnesses for the defendants who were sitting in an automobile near the highway saw the Harrison car pass them going toward the crossing, and they testified that as the automobile passed them they saw Mr. Harrison's head through the small opening in the back of the automobile, and observed that he did not turn his head to the right or to the left as he approached and entered upon the crossing. According to the defense, the speed of the train had been reduced to about six or eight miles per hour. Neither Mr. Chase, the conductor, nor any other member of the train crew except the engineer, witnessed the accident. At the conclusion of all of the evidence, the jury were taken to the crossing and viewed the entire scene.
The defendants ask the Court to declare as a matter of law that the decedents were guilty of gross and wilful contributory negligence, and would have the Court hold that the trial Court erred in refusing to direct a verdict upon the ground that the driver of the automobile came upon the crossing in full view of the approaching train, which could have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial