Heavener v. North Carolina R. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 May 1906 |
| Citation | 53 S.E. 513,141 N.C. 245 |
| Parties | HEAVENER v. NORTH CAROLINA R. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Cabarrus County; Bryan, Judge.
Action by John E. Heavener, administrator, against the North Carolina Railroad Company. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepts and appeals. No error.
In an action for the death of plaintiff's intestate, an instruction that if defendant's train, while running, on a track much used by the public both in crossing and in walking thereon, at a rapid rate, without any headlight or other proper signal, ran over deceased, and if there had been a proper light on the engine, or the bell had been ringing he would have had notice of the approaching train in time to escape the danger, and would have escaped, and if he did not have such notice or warning, and by reason thereof was injured, then such failure to have the headlight or other proper signal was continuing negligence and the proximate cause of the injury, was proper.
Action for personal injury caused by alleged negligence of employé and agents of Southern Railway Company, operating defendant's road under lease from defendant. There was evidence tending to show that on the night of March 6, 1904 intestate of plaintiff, while walking along the track of defendant in the town of Concord, was run over and killed by the train of defendant's lessee; that the place of the occurrence was between the Buffalo and Cannon Mills, a thickly settled portion of the town of Concord, and the track there was used as a common walk way by the mill hands and others. One witness testified: Another witness testified that the plaintiff's intestate "and everybody else in that section used the railroad track in coming and going from the mill and in coming and going from the depot, and nobody ever objected to it." That it was a dark and rainy night, and the intestate was going along the track to his boarding house "like we always go," and he was run over and killed by the train going north and that said train had no headlight and gave no signal or warning of any kind. Intestate's ante mortem statement received without objection was as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horton v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
...line of decisions which hold that it is negligence to operate a train without a headlight. Stanley v. Railroad, 120 N.C. 514 ; Heavener v. Railroad, 141 N.C. 245 ; Brown, J., in Allen v. Railroad, N.C. 340 ; Walker, J., in Morrow v. Railroad, 147 N.C. 627 ; Brown, J., in Hammett v. Railroad......
-
Shepherd v. North Carolina R. Co.
...on the south side of the track going to and from the college buildings, which are on the north side of the railroad. In Heavener v. Railroad, 141 N.C. 245, 53 S.E. 513, court approved an instruction that if the defendant "was running its train through the corporate limits of the town of Con......
-
Horne v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...from the track; and that with a headlight the engineer could easily have seen the car in time to avert the injury. In Heavener's Case, 141 N.C. 245, 53 S.E. 513, the approved an instruction that "if the jury should further find from the evidence that if there had been a proper light upon th......
-
McNeill v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... 704 167 N.C. 390 MCNEILL v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. No. 284. Supreme Court of North Carolina December 2, 1914 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, Cumberland ... a train without a headlight. Stanley v. Railroad, ... 120 N.C. 514, 27 S.E. 27; Heavener v. Railroad, 141 ... N.C. 245, 53 S.E. 513; Brown, J., in Allen v ... Railroad 149 N.C. 258, ... ...