Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Wyatt

• Decision Date: 18 April 1900
• Citation: 58 S.W. 308
• Parties: ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. WYATT.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

58 S.W. 308

ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. WYATT.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April 18, 1900.

Appeal from circuit court, Gibson county; John R. Bond, Judge.

Action by J. W. Wyatt against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals in error. Affirmed.

J. P. Rhodes and W. I. McFarland, for appellant. Ed. Smith and Harwood & Tyree, for appellee.

BEARD, J.

The defendant in error, while unloading cotton from his wagon to the platform of the plaintiff in error, placed one foot on the projecting end of a plank which formed a part of the platform. The pressure of the foot loosened the nail which had been driven to hold the inside end of the sleeper on which it rested, and it flew up and precipitated him to the ground, inflicting upon him injuries, to recover damages for which this suit was brought. The litigation resulted in a verdict for $750 against the railroad, on which judgment was rendered by the court below. From this an appeal in the nature of a writ of error has been prosecuted.

In the progress of the cause the plaintiff below, over the objection of the railroad company, was permitted to show by the testimony of two witnesses that subsequent to the accident the company made extensive repairs to this platform. This action of the trial judge is assigned for error. In this there was error. While there has been some difference of opinion on this question, it is now settled, upon what we deem sound reason, and certainly by the overwhelming weight of judicial opinion, that such testimony is incompetent, because the making of such repairs as would serve to secure the owner against claims for damages for future casualties is not to be construed into an admission of antecedent negligence, and evidence thereof is calculated to divert the jury from the real issue, and create prejudice against the defendant. To permit such testimony to be given would be, in effect, to place the owner in the embarrassing attitude of being compelled to choose between the risk of another accident, by maintaining the status quo, or by repairing, and making evidence against himself which would act prejudicially to his defense in the minds of the jury. This should not be tolerated. Railroad Co. v. Hawthorne, 144 U. S. 202, 12 Sup. Ct. 591, 36 L. Ed. 405; Electric Co. v. Lubbers, 11 Colo. 505, 19 Pac. 479, 7 Am. St. Rep. 255; Nally v. Carpet Co., 51 Conn. 524, 50 Am. Rep. 47; Railroad Co. v. Clem, 123 Ind. 15, 23 N. E. 965, 18 Am. St. Rep. 303; Shinners v. Proprietors of Locks and Canals, 154 Mass. 168, 28 N. E. 10; Morse v. Railway Co., 30 Minn. 465, 16 N. W. 358; Corcoran v. Peekskill, 108 N. Y. 151, 15 N. E. 309; Railway Co. v. Hennessey, 75 Tex. 155, 12 S. W. 608; Hodges v. Percival, 132 Ill. 53, 23 N. E. 423; Ely v. Railway Co., 77 Mo. 34...