Hollman v. Atl. Coast Liner. Co
| Decision Date | 23 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 15470.,15470. |
| Parties | HOLLMAN. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINER. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Court of Charleston County; Samuel L. Prince, Special Judge.
Action by Hessie Hollman, as administratrix of the estate of Arthur Hollman, deceased, against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company to recover damages for negligent killing of plaintiff's intestate. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Hagood, Rivers & Young, of Charleston, for appellant.
Brantly Seymour and J. C. Long, both of Charleston, for respondent.
This case originated in the Circuit Court of Charleston County, and is an action for actionable negligence, brought by the plaintiff, Hessie Hollman, as administrator of the estate of Arthur Hollman, deceased, to recover damages for the negligent killing of the plaintiff's intestate by the defendant, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company.
The deceased, a colored boy, was nine years and seven months old. He was killed as he was walking along a well-defined path leading from King Street to Meeting Street in the County of Charleston, which crossed four parallel railroad tracks at what is known as the Heriot Street Crossing. He was struck by a northbound passenger train of the defendant. The accident occurred Saturday afternoon, March 19, 1938, at about five o'clock, at a point opposite Heriot Street where it enters King Street about 50 yards north of Magnolia Railroad Crossing, just outside of the limits of the City of Charleston.
There is practically no dispute with reference to the salient facts. The boy was observed by several witnesses just before he came into collision with the passenger train. He was walking fast, with his head down, but looking to the north; he had to cross three tracks and the space between them before coming in contact with the train, which was on the fourth track. The evidence shows that if he had looked to the south, from which direction the train was coming, he could not have seen it until it was within 55 feet of him, on account of obstructions and a curve in the track. He walked straight ahead, apparently in a hurry, and was struck by the cylinder head of the locomotive, which is located on the engine about two feet to the rear of the cowcatcher or pilot.
Heriot Street Crossing where the boy was killed is a much-traveled thoroughfare; people continually walk across the tracks from one street to the other, going to and coming from the many meat markets located both on King Street and Meeting Street. And this crossing is a transfer place for busses from the Belt Line to the Navy Yard. The congestion of travel by pedestrians at this crossing is most marked on Saturday afternoons. In fact the testimony indicates that at such times it is the busiest spot in Charleston County. The northbound train approached Magnolia Crossing around a wide curve, and neither the engineer nor the fireman could see the crossing at Heriot Street, --which is about 55 yards beyond, --until the train was within approximately 55 feet of it. It is admitted by the defense that on the afternoon in question, the passenger train was traveling at a speed of from 20 to 25 miles per hour. Witnesses for the plaintiff give a much greater speed. The engineer never saw the boy at all, and the fireman saw him only an instant before he came into contact with the engine.
The engineer testified that he had been operating on this route for thirty years; that he knew the public path or walkway Extending across the tracks, knew that pedestrians used this walkway continuously, and that on Saturday afternoons there was always a large crowd around the meat markets in that area. He admitted that it was impossible to stop the train at the crossing in question, at the rate he was traveling, within the distance of his visibility, or the visibility of the fireman, because of the curve and obstructions. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether the statutory signals were given.
The negligence charged in the complaint against the defendant is the omission to give the statutory signals for the Magnolia Street Crossing, failure to keep a proper lookout, running at a dangerous rate of speed having due regard to the condition known to exist at the Heriot Street Crossing; failure to use reasonable diligence to stop the train in time to avoid the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medlin v. United States, Civ. A. No. 4486
...negligence", but such presumption is prima facie only, and may be rebutted by evidence of capacity. Hollman v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 201 S.C. 308, 22 S.E.2d 892. Beasley v. United States,5 was an action for injuries to a minor ten years old under somewhat similar circumstances. There ......
-
Bolt v. Gibson, 16900
...And in no event does the law impose the same degree of care and caution upon a minor as a person of mature age. Hollman v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 201 S.C. 308, 22 S.E.2d 892. In the absence of any fact or circumstance indicating that the driver is incompetent or careless, an occupant o......
- Hollman v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
-
Rowe v. Frick
...negligence, but that such presumption is Prima facie only, and can be rebutted by evidence of capacity. Hollman v. Atlantic C.L.R. Co., 201 S.C. 308, 22 S.E.2d 892. We think there was no error on the part of the trial judge in submitting to the jury the question whether the plaintiff posses......