McGhee v. White
Decision Date | 04 March 1895 |
Docket Number | 230. |
Citation | 66 F. 502 |
Parties | McGHEE et al. v. WHITE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Plaintiffs in error were receivers of the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company, and as such operated the Louisville Southern Railroad under a lease from the Louisville Southern Railroad Company to the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company. While the road was being operated by the receivers, Green Kennedy, the intestate of the defendant in error, was killed by one of their trains in Lawrenceburg, Ky. The accident occurred at the point where the railway is crossed by the main road from Lawrenceburg to Frankfort which runs from north to south. The railway track crosses the road diagonally from southeast to northwest within the corporate limits of Lawrenceburg, but outside of the more densely settled portion of the town. For a quarter of a mile south of this crossing there are no houses on either side of the turnpike except that of Mrs. Caldwell, which stands about 40 yards south of the crossing, and 20 feet east of the pike and has the railroad at its rear as well as on its north side. Three hundred yards before reaching the crossing the railroad makes a curve in a cut. Whether a train running in this cut is hidden from a traveler on the pike was in dispute. The pike before it reaches the crossing is below the level of the railway, and reaches the railway on a grade. From a point upon the turnpike 20 feet south of the crossing the railway track can be seen about 40 yards eastwardly from the crossing. The track west of the crossing is straight and level and in open ground for half to three-quarters of a mile. On the 26th of August, 1892, Green Kennedy, seated in a wagon, was driving a horse and mule northwardly on the turnpike road just described towards the railroad crossing. Holly Meux, a colored boy, was sitting on the seat with Kennedy. As they approached the railway, a work train crossed. Kennedy stopped the wagon in front of Mrs. Caldwell's house, 40 yards from the track, and, as the work train passed, went on slowly towards the crossing. The mule and the horse were upon the track when a second train, a freight train following the work train, struck the mule, killed Kennedy instantly, and injured the boy Meux. Suit was brought in the circuit court of Anderson county, Ky., to recover damages, and it was removed by defendants to the court below, where a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $4,500. Upon motion for new trial the court made an order granting the same, unless a remittitur was entered of $2,000. This was done, and judgment was rendered for the $2,500. Holly Meux, who was on the wagon with Kennedy, testified: 'Henry Anderson testified for the plaintiff: 'Lula Kingston, who was approaching the crossing from the other side, from the north, and did not quite reach it before the second train passed, said: 'I did not see at that time Green Kennedy nor his wagon and team near the railroad crossing, but after the train had passed I came back and saw where the wagon had been struck and a man was killed. ' Another witness, Mattie Sewell, testified that she was looking out of her window, through which she could see to the middle of the pike where the railway crossed it; that she followed the first train with her eye until a shadow came across in front of her, and she turned her head, and saw another train, which struck the wagon Green Kennedy was in. Claude Anderson, who was sitting on the fence just south of the crossing, said that he turned his head to look at the work train, and did not see the other train as it approached the crossing until just before it struck the wagon. For 'the defendant, Bertha Caldwell testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davy v. Great Northern Railway Co.
......M. & S. R. Co. 79 Ark. 137, 116 Am. St. Rep. 67, 95 S.W. 490, 9 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 212; French v. Taunton Branch R. Co. 116 Mass. 537; McGhee v. White, 13 C. C. A. 608, 31. U. S. App. 366, 66 F. 502; Ferguson v. Wisconsin C. R. Co. 63 Wis. 145, 23 N.W. 123; Phillips v. Milwaukee & N. R. ......
-
Missouri & North Arkansas Railroad Company v. Bratton
...Am. Dec. 353; 18 L. R. A. 60; 9 L. R. A. 521; 101 N.Y. 419; 140 N.Y. 639; 147 Mass, 495; 116 Mass. 540; 4 Am. St. Rep. 364; 105 Ind. 406; 66 F. 502; 63 Wis. 152; 77 Wis. 349; 72 Wis. 56 Mich. 1; 105 Ind. 404; 26 S.W. 20; 89 Hun, 596; 84 Me. 117; 132 Mass. 269; 68 Miss. 566. 4. The act of th......
-
Shaffer ex rel. Shaffer v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, Chicago
...... Beckham v. Hines, 279 F. 241; Hines v. Hoover, 271 F. 645;. Begart v. Payne, 274 F. 784; Payne v. Haubert, 277 F. 646; McGhee v. White, 66 F. 502; Flannelly v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 56 L.Ed. 1221; Baltimore & O. Railroad Co. v. Griffith, 40. L.Ed. 277; Richmond & ......
-
Henderson v. St. Louissan Francisco Railway Company
......310; Weller v. Railroad, . 164 Mo. 204; Jones v. Railway, 220 S.W. 485;. French v. Railroad, 116 Mass. 737; McGee v. White, 66 F. 502. (6) The traveler's negligence, in. failing to use proper care in looking for and discovering an. approaching train at a crossing, is ......