Hudson and Wife v. L. & N. R. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 November 1878 |
| Citation | 77 Ky. 303 |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Hudson and Wife v. L. & N. R. R. Co. |
APPEAL FROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT.
BRECKINRIDGE & THOMPSON FOR APPELLANTS.
DURHAM & JACOBS FOR APPELLEE.
JUDGE COFER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The appellants, Hudson and wife, brought this suit against appellee to recover damages for injuries resulting to Mrs. Hudson from the alleged negligence of the employes operating and controlling one of its trains. The court sustained a demurrer to the petition, and the only question on this appeal is whether that ruling was correct.
The substance of the allegations of the petition was about this:
One of the branches of appellee's railroad runs for some distance near to and parallel with a turnpike leading from Perryville to Mitchellsburg; that Mrs. Hudson was driving in a buggy along the turnpike; that a train on appellee's road, about an hour after its usual time of passing that place, came along, moving in the same direction in which Mrs. Hudson was traveling; that the buggy could be seen by the engineer for a distance of about one quarter of a mile from where it was on the turnpike road; that Mrs. Hudson could not see the train because it was behind her, and the top of the buggy obstructed her view; that no whistle was sounded or other notice given of the approach of the train; that the horse attached to the buggy became frightened at the noise, and when the train was within a few yards of the buggy the whistle attached to the engine was blown, and the horse becoming still worse frightened, ran away and threw Mrs. Hudson out, and broke her arm and shoulder.
The appellee's road was located under authority of law, and it has an unquestioned right to run trains thereon without responsibility for injuries to persons or property on or near to its road, unless such injury is caused by the improper construction or condition of its road, the unsuitableness of its machinery or the unskillfulness, unfitness, or negligence of its agents or employes.
But railroad companies, like natural persons, must so use their own property and privileges as not to injure the rights of others, and in running their cars they must exercise a care proportioned to the danger of injury to others from negligence in the use of so dangerous a power as steam; and, as the danger of injury to others is increased, the law requires a corresponding increase of vigilance and care on the part of those using it.
According to the allegations in the petition the train was an hour behind its usual time, and was approaching a point where the railroad ran for some distance parallel with and near to a public highway, and no notice of its approach was given whereby to afford persons who might happen to be traveling on the highway, near to the railroad track with teams, to take steps to protect themselves from being injured by the fright of the animals at the sight or noise of the train; and the court by sustaining the demurrer decided that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial