L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Stanaford
| Decision Date | 29 November 1916 |
| Citation | 172 Ky. 511 |
| Parties | Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Stanaford. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Whitley Circuit Court.
HIRAM H. TYE and BENJAMIN D. WARFIELD for appellant.
STEPHENS & STEELY for appellee.
This is a personal injury action, in which plaintiff, Roxie Stanaford, recovered of the defendant, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, a verdict and judgment for $3,000.00. The railroad company appeals.
The company's line runs through the town of Williamsburg between what is known as the "Sutton Crossing" and the "Underground Crossing." One of the highways of the town runs practically parallel with the company's track for a distance of about a quarter of a mile. The distance of the highway from the company's track varies from twenty to seventy-five feet. At a point about midway between the "Sutton Crossing" and the "Underground Crossing" are three one-story houses, which are located between the highway and the track. Near the "Sutton Crossing" is a deep cut. Emerging from the cut the track is on a fill, while the highway runs through what is called a sag, and for a considerable distance is lower than the railroad track.
On the day of the accident plaintiff and her brother were driving along the highway. One of the company's trains going south gave the crossing signal just before reaching the "Sutton Crossing." The horse which plaintiff and her brother were driving became frightened and started down the highway just in front of the engine. The highway was located on the side next to the engineer. A part of the time the horse was ahead of the train and at other times the train was ahead of the horse. According to the evidence for plaintiff, plaintiff's brother, after going some distance, succeeded in getting the horse under control and drew him to a slow lope. About that time the engineer gave two sharp whistles and permitted the steam to pop off under the engine. Thereupon the horse took fright a second time and ran rapidly down the highway to the "Underground Crossing," where the highway makes a sharp turn. In making this turn the buggy was upset and plaintiff thrown to the ground and severely injured. One witness for plaintiff claims that when he saw the horse was frightened he stepped upon the track and undertook to flag down the train, but received no response to his signal. Another witness says that when the horse took fright the second time the engineer was looking in the direction of the horse and buggy. Another witness says that the engineer was leaning out of his cab laughing. A third witness says that the engineer was sticking his waist out and looking at the horse and buggy. Others say that the horse and buggy were in plain view of the engineer, except for a short distance where two or three houses were between the track and the highway.
The engineer says that he never saw the horse and buggy, but had his attention directed to the block signals. He also says that after giving the signals for the "Sutton Crossing" he gave no further signals until after he passed the "Underground Crossing." The fireman testifies to the same effect.
In its instructions the court told the jury in substance that if they believed from the evidence that the defendant's engineer, after discovering plaintiff's presence in the buggy on the highway, saw, or by the use of ordinary care could have seen, that the horse was frightened, and that the circumstances were such as to lead an ordinarily prudent person, situated as the engineer was, to believe that the horse would surge or run and injure plaintiff, and he thereafter failed to use ordinary care to stop or control the train and prevent unnecessary loud noises, etc., they should find for plaintiff. This instruction is assailed on the ground that it imposed on defendant's engineer the duty to discover plaintiff's peril. It is defended by plaintiff on the ground that it conforms to the ruling of this court in the cases of L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Allen, 153 Ky. 252, and Kentucky Traction & Terminal Company v. Humphrey, 168 Ky. 611....
To continue reading
Request your trial