Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Bell

• Decision Date: 18 March 1908
• Citation: 108 S.W. 335
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. BELL.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

108 S.W. 335

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. BELL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 18, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bullitt County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Minnie Bell against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Chas Carroll and Benjamin D. Warfield, for appellant.

Nat W Halstead and Ben Chapeze, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

Minnie Bell worked in a distillery at Hobbs Station, bottling whisky, and while so at work stayed at John Thompson's who lived about a half mile from the station on the track of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad. From his house to the station there was a county road. On the morning of October 9 1906, after she got her breakfast, she started to the distillery, and when she reached the railroad track she concluded to walk up the track to the distillery, instead of going by the dirt road, as it was muddy. She started along the railroad, and in about 25 feet came to a high trestle 700 feet long. It was about time for the morning train from Bardstown. She stopped and listened for the train, and, not seeing or hearing it, started across the trestle. When she had gone some distance out on the trestle a man in the bottom below called to her that the train was coming. She then started to run to get across; but the train came upon her so quickly that she had to jump from the trestle to save her life, and as she hit the ground the engine passed over her. In the fall she broke one leg at the ankle. It was a very painful fracture, which caused her much pain, and renders her lame for life. She sued to recover for her injury, charging that those in charge of the train saw her danger and could have avoided the injury to her, after perceiving it, by ordinary care on their part. The defendant filed an answer in which it denied the allegations of the petition and pleaded contributory negligence. The plaintiff proved by two witnesses that the engineer was in the cab looking out down the track as he approached the trestle; that for a distance of 325 yards from the trestle he had a view of it, as the track was practically straight; and that the train which he was running could have been stopped in 150 or 200 yards. It was a light passenger train, running about 20 miles an hour. She also proved by a witness that, just before reaching the trestle, four or five sharp blasts of the whistle were blown such as are usual for an alarm. On the other hand, the railroad men testify that this whistling was done for the crossing, and that the track curved, and the engineer could only see about 150 yards in front of him. The fireman testified that he was looking out, and had a view of the trestle, but saw no one on it. The railroad men also testified that they knew nothing of the occurrence until their return that evening. On this evidence...