Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Davis

• Decision Date: 21 June 1894
• Citation: 103 Ala. 661,16 So. 10
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. DAVIS ET AL.

16 So. 10

103 Ala. 661

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. DAVIS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 21, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Baldwin county; James T. Jones, Judge.

Action by Stephen W. Davis and another against the Louisville &amp Nashville Railroad Company. There was a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The appellees sued the appellant railroad company for killing a colt on the track of its line. The defendant pleaded the general issue. On the trial of the case, as is shown by the bill of exceptions, S.W. Davis, joint owner of the animal with T. E. Davis, testified, that it was killed by an engine of the defendant company, near Hurricane bayou, being cut in two; that his head and front feet were lying on one side of the track, the hind legs on the other, and the entrails strewn along the middle of the track; that he saw tracks for the distance of 130 steps which looked like this colt's tracks, as if in a run, along the railroad bed, going from the south towards the north. He also testified to the colt's value, as did other witnesses in the case. This was all the evidence for the plaintiff. But one witness, A W. Mayson, was examined for the defendant, who testified that he was a locomotive engineer and had been for nine years; was in the employ of the defendant, and was running the engine that killed the colt; that he was running a passenger train going north consisting of the locomotive and four coaches but at what rate of speed he did not state; that the headlight was standard, such as is used by all well-regulated railroads, and was burning brightly; that he was keeping a steady lookout ahead, but did not see the colt until his engine was within 30 or 40 feet of it; that it was then about 5 feet from the track and down on an embankment about 5 feet high, in the act of climbing up the embankment and crossing the track, from east to west; that he immediately applied the air brakes, but before he could do anything else, the colt was on the track and the train was running over it; that he did all in his power, and everything known to skillful engineers to avoid killing the animal, and there was nothing that could have kept it from being killed; that he could see only 150 yards ahead of him by means of the headlight, and the train could have been stopped within that distance; that he could not have seen the colt, before he did see it, and could not see it after it got in front of the engine, as it was so near, as to be under the headlight. The night was a very dark one. This was all the evidence. The defendant requested the general charge which was refused, and verdict and judgment were rendered for plaintiffs, for the value of the colt.

Ray Rushton, for appellant.

Guy C Sibley, for appellees.

HARALSON J.

1. According to the decisions of this court, if a railroad company knowingly runs its...