Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Fentress' Adm'r
Decision Date | 28 October 1915 |
Citation | 179 S.W. 419,166 Ky. 477 |
Parties | LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. FENTRESS' ADM'R. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Muhlenberg County.
Action by the administrator of Bruce M. Fentress against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions.
Benjamin D. Warfield, of Louisville, Taylor & Eaves, of Greenville and Wilbur F. Browder, of Russellville, for appellant.
Virgil Y. Moore, of Marion, Gordon & Gordon & Cox, of Madisonville and Thos. J. Sparks, of Greenville, for appellee.
On Sunday, November 9, 1913, Bruce M. Fentress and Duncan Morgan aged, respectively, 18 and 17, went to Cleaton, a mining town in Muhlenberg county on appellant's railway line, to call upon two young ladies, Misses Jackson. Finding that the young ladies were out of town, but would return on the afternoon train, they remained there and met them at that train. The young men themselves expected to leave the town on another train which left shortly after the train bringing the young ladies came. After having first made arrangements with a friend to purchase their tickets for them so that they could remain as long as possible with the young ladies and still catch their train, they proceeded with them down the railroad track about 250 or 300 yards in the direction of their home. At this place was a bridge or crossing where they had a view of the railroad track all the way back to the station and about 250 or 300 yards in the other direction from which the train they expected to board was coming. They stayed at the bridge or crossing and talked to the young ladies for about five minutes, when their train appeared around the curve about 250 or 300 yards away. They hastily told the young ladies good-bye, and started running down the track towards the station, the train coming behind them going in the same direction. It was about 5:40 p. m., and dark. Morgan was about 10 feet in front of Fentress. At a point about halfway between the bridge and the station there were four tracks two of which ran under a coal tipple, another known as the main track, and a passing track. The main track was the most eastern, and the passing track was next to it, and between them was a space of a few feet. The headlight of the engine was shining brightly, and when they were near the coal tipple Fentress, thinking that Morgan was on the passing track, and that the train behind them was coming on that track, hollered to him that he was on the wrong track. Morgan at the time was not in fact on the passing track, but was in the space between the two tracks, but, when notified by Fentress that he was on the wrong track, he immediately observed that Fentress himself was on the track upon which the train was coming and which was then within 10 feet of him, and so notified him. Fentress then for the first time observed that he was on the track upon which the train was coming, and made a quick and well-nigh successful effort to jump off the track, but the engine struck his leg, threw him against a switch signal, and killed him.
This is an action by the personal representative of Fentress against the railroad company for damages. On the trial in the lower court the plaintiff recovered a judgment and verdict for $2,500, and the railroad company appeals. The only ground of reversal is that the company was entitled to a peremptory instruction, and that is the only question necessary to be determined.
Morgan, Fentress' companion at the time, was the only eyewitness to the accident, and tells of it in the following way:
Again on his main examination he testifies as to the point where Fentress got on the main track as follows:
"
Again on cross-examination he says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McKinney's Adm'x v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co.
... ... To this class appellant ... assigns Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Taylor's ... Adm'r, 169 Ky. 436, 184 S.W. 371; ... 719, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 380; Louisville & N. R. R. Co ... v. Fentress' Adm'r, 166 Ky. 477, 179 S.W. 419, ... and others. (c) Where the ... ...
-
McKinney's Adm'X v. Cin., N.O. & T.P.R.R. Co.
...line of cases Louisville & N.R.R. Co. v. Trower's Adm'r, 131 Ky. 589, 115 S.W. 719, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 380; Louisville & N.R.R. Co. v. Fentress' Adm'r, 166 Ky. 477, 179 S.W. 419, and others. (c) Where the trespasser is traveling on the track of the railroad and unaware of the approach of the ......
-
Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Hunter's Adm'r
... ... 719, 20 L ... R. A. (N. S.) 380, and L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Fentress' ... Adm'r, 166 Ky. 477, 179 S.W. 419, and held there ... could be no ... ...
-
Gullett's Adm'r v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
... ... [206 S.W. 642] ... plainly abused. Smith's Adm'r v. Louisville ... Railway Co., 174 Ky. 784, 192 S.W. 875; Cherry Bros ... v ... Co. v. Taylor's Adm'r, 169 Ky. 435, ... 184 S.W. 371; Same v. Fentress' Adm'r, 166 ... Ky. 477, 179 S.W. 419; Same v. Trower's ... Adm'r, 131 ... ...