McCauley v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co.

• Citation: 9 So. 611,93 Ala. 356
• Parties: MCCAULEY v. TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & RAILROAD CO.
• Decision Date: 25 June 1891
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

9 So. 611

93 Ala. 356

MCCAULEY v. TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & RAILROAD CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 25, 1891

Appeal from city court of Birmingham; H. A. SHARPE, Judge.

Action by James McCauley against the Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Bowman & Harsh, for appellant.

Hewitt, Walker & Porter, for appellee.

COLEMAN J.

Railroads are held strictly responsible for all damages sustained by passengers traveling upon their lines by reason of fault or negligence on their part, and by statute, in many cases, when damage results, the presumption of negligence arises. For their own protection railroads are permitted to make all reasonable rules and regulations conducive to the safety of passengers. A regulation which forbids passengers to stand upon the platform whie the car is in motion is not only reasonable, but proper; and if a passenger, having knowledge of such regulation, unnecessarily exposes himself, in violation of the rule, he does so at his own peril, and not at the peril of the railroad. This is the law clearly stated in the case of Railroad Co. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 116 and is fully sustained both upon reason and authority. The testimony conflicted as to whether plaintiff's intestate was inside the car or upon the platform when the car struck the cow, and which caused the car to leave the track. There was evidence tending to show that deceased and one other person were upon the platform when the cow was struck, and that both persons fell between the cars, and were run over and killed. There was evidence tending to show that none of the persons who remained inside the cars were seriously hurt and the evidence tended to show there was room inside for deceased if he had chosen to remain inside. There was evidence also that plaintiff's intestate knew of the regulation which prohibited persons from being on the platform while the car was in motion. The correctness of the rulings of the trial court in giving or refusing charges must always be tested by reference to the testimony before the jury. The evidence showed that the train upon which deceased was riding was used by the defendant to carry its own employes and their tools to and from their place of work, and was not used for the transportation of passengers. It was a rule of the defendant, and known to plaintiff's intestate, that no one should ride upon this train except defendant's employes, without the permission of the defendant's superintendent, who at this time was one McCormick. The evidence tended to show that one J. W. Watts was getting out timbers for defendant's company at so much per thousand at a place along defendant's line, and that Watts had a number of men employed in his service, and among them was plaintiff's intestate, and that his (Watts') employes boarded with him at Pratt Mines. That Watts and his employes had been in the habit of boarding this train every morning as it passed Pratt Mines, to go out to their work; and, as it returned in the evening, would come in on it to their place of lodging. Watts and his employes paid no fare, and none was demanded of them. The witness Watts testified that for six months he and his employes had been in the habit of going out to his work and returning on this train without objection from any one;...