Langston v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

Decision Date29 July 1941
Docket Number15305.
Citation15 S.E.2d 758,197 S.C. 469
PartiesLANGSTON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Felder & Rosen, of Orangeburg, and Douglas McKay, of Columbia for appellants.

A J. Hydrick and Zeigler & Brailsford, all of Orangeburg for respondent.

FISHBURNE Justice.

The appeal involves issues growing out of a railroad crossing accident just outside the limits of the city of Orangeburg which resulted in the death of plaintiff's intestate, Claude Edward Langston, who at the time of the accident was riding upon a motorcycle. The action was defended upon the ground that the deceased was guilty of gross and willful negligence in approaching and entering upon the crossing, which negligence contributed as a proximate cause to the fatal accident. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal upon the ground that the Court erred in overruling motions for nonsuit and for directed verdict on account of Langston's gross, contributory negligence, recklessness, willfulness and wantonness. This constitutes the sole question for determination by this Court.

The complaint contains specifications of negligence and willfulness, including failure on the part of the train crew to keep a reasonable lookout for travelers upon the highway; operating the train at a high and reckless rate of speed under the circumstances; failure to give the statutory signals; and in erecting, causing to be erected, or permitting to be erected buildings and structures on the right-of-way, both to the east and to the west of the crossing, in such close proximity to the railway line and to the intersection of the same with Whitman Street as to unreasonably obstruct the view of persons using the highway and crossing of a train traveling in either direction.

On October 26, 1939, about 7:30 in the morning, Langston, a young man about twenty-three years of age, left his home on a motorcycle with the intention of going to the Carolina Packing Company's plant, where he was an employee. The course he pursued lay along Whitman Street, and across the tracks of the defendant railroad company. At the crossing in question the railroad track runs northeast and southwest, and Whitman Street runs east and west, crossing the tracks at a sharp angle.

In accordance with the settled rule of this Court where the appeal is from the refusal to grant a nonsuit or a directed verdict, we adopt the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict, and give it the strongest probative force of which it will admit.

The testimony shows that the deceased approached the crossing at an estimated speed of twenty miles an hour. He was experienced in the operation of a motorcycle, being regarded as a careful and expert driver. The motorcycle was in first class mechanical condition, being equipped with new tires, a standard muffler, and with the brakes in good working order. The evidence indicates that it had rained lightly sometime before daylight, and the asphalt paving was therefore slightly damp. It was shown that under ordinary conditions a motorcycle such as decedent's, traveling at a speed of thirty miles an hour, could be stopped within ten feet by applying the brakes, and within a shorter distance by throwing it down.

Certain buildings and structures on the railroad right-of-way, to Langston's left as he approached the crossing, either partially or completely obstructed his view of the train coming from that direction. Several maps showing the physical surroundings at the crossing were introduced in evidence, and at the conclusion of all the evidence the jury were taken to the crossing and viewed the entire scene. There was uncontradicted testimony that a full view of the approaching train, because of the obstructions, was impossible until Mr. Langston on his motorcycle reached a point on Whitman Street about fifty feet from the main line track.

The railroad right-of-way at the crossing is 130 feet wide, that is, 65 feet from the center of the track on each side. On this 65-foot area on the western side of the track, from which direction Langston was approaching, are the several obstructions referred to. First a brick garage, 30 X 32 feet in size, used by the Gulf Oil Corporation, and located about 120 feet from the crossing. This was enclosed by a substantial wire fence which projected on the side toward the track several feet beyond the brick garage, and came within thirty-three feet or less of the railroad track. About forty feet to the left of the brick garage was a one-story galvanized iron supply house, considerably larger than the garage. About fifty feet to the left of this supply house were five large oil tanks of the Gulf Oil Corporation. Continuing to the left was a smaller building and three oil tanks of the Sinclair Refining Company.

It is reasonably inferable that at the angle which Langston approached the crossing these obstructions prevented an extended view of the track to his left until he had reached a point 35 or 40 feet from the crossing.

It is clearly evident that these structures likewise constituted an obstruction to the view of the engineer, although, at his post in the cab of the engine he occupied a much higher elevation than that of Langston on his motorcycle. The engineer testified that as he approached the crossing he kept a careful lookout, but did not see Langston until the latter got to within 25 to 40 feet of the track. And when he was asked, "What was there to obstruct your view of him?" he replied, "He had not gotten where I could see him." Langston applied his brakes at a point thirty feet from the main line track, so that it might reasonably be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Jennings v. McCowan
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1949
    ... ... J. McCowan, G. R. Mims, O. K ... Scott and Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co. in the Court of ... Common Pleas for Darlington ... which it will admit. Langston v. Atlantic Coast Line R ... Co. et al., 197 S.C. 469, 15 S.E.2d 758; ... ...
  • Haselden v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1949
    ... ... to the well settled rule of this court that where the appeal ... is from the refusal to grant a nonsuit, or directed verdict ... we adopt the view of evidence most favorable to the verdict ... and give it the strongest probative force of which it will ... admit. Langston v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. et ... al., 197 S.C. 469, 15 S.E.2d 758 ...          The ... testimony shows that plaintiff, approximately forty years of ... age is married and has a wife and children dependent upon him ... for support. That at the time of ... [53 S.E.2d 62] ... ...
  • Thompson v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1946
    ... ... plaintiff's property. Miller v. Atlantic C. L. R ... Co., 140 S.C. 123, 138 S.E. 675; Mishoe v. Atlantic ... st Line R. Co., 186 S.C. 402, 197 S.E. 97; Ford ... v. Atlantic Coast Line R ... light of such presumption.' Langston" v. Atlantic C ... L. R. Co., 197 S.C. 469, 15 S.E.2d 758, 760 ...   \xC2" ... ...
  • Gleaton v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1946
    ... ... then proceeded over the house track and finally on the main ... line where his car was struck as it was swerved to the left ... in an apparent ... conclusion ...          'It ... was held in Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 169 ... S.C. 41, 168 S.E. 143 (decided by our Court en ... A. C. L. R. Co., 196 S.C. 259, 13 ... S.E.2d 137; Langston ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT