Malcom v. Richmond & D.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1890
• Citation: 11 S.E. 187,106 N.C. 63
• Parties: MALCOM v. RICHMOND & D. R. Co.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

11 S.E. 187

106 N.C. 63

MALCOM v. RICHMOND & D. R. Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 31, 1890

Appeal from superior court Guilford county; GRAVES, Judge.

The plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant's freight train from Winston to Greensborough. A passenger coach was attached to the train, and there was ample room in the same for the accommodation of all the passengers. While the train was taking in wood at a wood station, the plaintiff went on the rear platform of the coach, and stood there, without holding to anything, until the train started "with such a jerk as to throw him off violently on the rails," by reason of which he was injured. The negligence attributed to the defendant is that the train was started without any signal or other notice.

A railroad company is not liable for injuries sustained by a passenger who goes on the platform of the car, contrary to a posted notice warning him not to do so, and, while standing there without holding to the railing, is thrown off by the starting of the train.

J. T Morehead, for appellant.

D Schenck, for appellee.

SHEPHERD J., (after stating the facts as above.)

Whatever may be the duty which the law imposes upon railroad companies in respect to giving signals when its trains are approaching crossings and regular stations, it is clear that it has no application to the case before us. The supreme court of Alabama, in Railroad v. Hawk, 18 Amer. & Eng. R Cash. 194, in construing statutes requiring such signals to be given, says: "These precautions, so far as applicable to persons, are intended obviously, for the benefit of the traveling public, and others who have a right to be warned of approaching trains, for their personal protection against injury. Passengers who are on the trains are not ordinarily included in the letter or spirit of the statute. They do not need such signals of warning for their protect on; and they cannot, therefore, be construed to be entitled to them. Railroad Co. v. Boundrou, 92 Pa. St.475." The place of this accident was a mere wood station, and the train only stopped there for the purpose of taking on wood. The defendant was under no duty to give signals at such a place except. perhaps, for the purpose of warning its employes; and they alone could take advantage of any omission in this respect.

Apart from this, however, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. "Railroad...