McMillan v. Atlanta & C. Air Line Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 29 November 1916 |
Docket Number | 447. |
Parties | MCMILLAN v. ATLANTA & C. AIR LINE RY. CO. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Gaston County; Carter, Judge.
Action by A. N. McMillan, administrator, against the Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Railway Company. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. No error.
A party desiring that the court submit to the jury any special theory of the case, supported by the evidence, should ask for an appropriate instruction.
The instructions were, in part, as follows:
Plaintiff alleged that his intestate, J. W. Stout, was killed by a collision between an automobile, driven by another, in which he was riding, and a train of defendant at a crossing in East King's Mountain on August 17, 1914, and that his death was caused by defendant's negligence. The jury returned the following verdict:
Judgment thereon, and plaintiff appealed.
Mangum & Woltz and N. F. McMillan, all of Gastonia, for appellant.
O. F. Mason and Geo. B. Mason, both of Gastonia, and F. M. Shannonhouse and W. S. Bean, both of Charlotte, for appellee.
There was no issue as to contributory negligence, and there was no such question in the case as it was not tried upon that theory, but rather upon the question of proximate cause. We have examined the charge carefully, and find it to be an accurate statement of the law as applicable to the facts, and it was in exact accordance with the principles as laid down by this court in Crampton v. Ivie Bros., 126 N.C 894, 36 S.E. 351, and Bagwell v. Railroad Co., 167 N.C. 611, 83 S.E. 814. See, also, 2 Ruling Case Law, p. 1205. The questions were as to who was negligent and as to whose negligence was the proximate cause of the intestate's death, unaffected by any contributory negligence on his part. This controversy was submitted to the jury clearly and explicitly, with a fair and impartial statement of the several contentions and a correct application of the law to the facts as the jury might find them to be, following closely the above-cited cases.
The court instructed the jury that:
"There is no question of contributory negligence in the case, since the law does not impute the negligence of the driver of the automobile to plaintiff's intestate."
The rules in regard to positive and negative testimony ( State v. Murray, 139 N.C. 540, 51 S.E. 775; Rosser v. Bynum, 168 N.C. 340, 84 S.E. 393) and the duty of the engineer to persons on or near the track of a railroad were properly stated by the court and with apt illustration (Syme v. Railroad Co., 113 N.C. 558, 18 S.E. 114; Treadwell v. Railroad Co., 169 N.C. 694, 86 S.E. 617; 33 Cyc. 800).
If the contentions of the respective parties were incorrectly given, it was required of plaintiff that the judge's attention should have been called to the error in due time, so that he might correct it. Nevins v. Hughes, 168 N.C. 477, 84 S.E. 769. If the defendant desired that the court submit to the jury any special theory of the case, which was supported by evidence, he should have asked for an appropriate instruction. Penn v. Insurance Co., 160 N.C. 399, 76 S.E. 262, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 597. But the contentions of the parties were fully and fairly stated to the jury, with proper discrimination as to their bearing upon the issues, and plaintiff has no cause to complain on this score.
There are some questions of evidence, but none of them, had there been any error, is of importance enough to warrant a reversal. The judge was correct in all these rulings. As to some of the questions excluded there was no sufficient indication of what the witness would have answered, and others had no substantial relevancy to the case. The evidence admitted on plaintiff's objections was clearly competent. The requests for instructions as to contributory negligence were given in the charge to the extent that plaintiff was entitled to them.
The negligence of the driver was permitted to be considered by the jury only upon the question of proximate cause, and this view is sustained by Crampton v. Ivie Bros., supra, and Bagwell v. Railroad Co., supra.
The subsequent changes in signals or warnings for additional safety were properly excluded under the circumstances as proof of negligence. Precautions against the future cannot be considered as an admission of actionable negligence in the past. Columbia & P. S. Railroad Co. v. Hawthorne, 144 U.S. 202, 12 S.Ct. 591, 36 L.Ed. 405. The court said in that case:
Morse v. Minn. & St. L. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 465, 468, 16 N.W. 358.
The same rule appears to be well settled in England. In a case in which it was affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Baron Bramwell said:
Hart v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, 21 Law Times (N. S.) 261, 263.
The court also said in that case (Railroad v. Hawthorne, supra):
--citing many cases, and among others Morse v. Minn. & St. L. Railway Co., 30 Minn. 465, 16 N.W. 358; Corcoran v. Peekskill, 108 N.Y. 151, 15 N.E. 309; T. H. & Ind. Railroad v. Clem, 123 Ind. 15, 22 N.E. 965, 7 L. R. A. 588, 18 Am. St. Rep. 303.
Part of the above quotation was taken from the opinion of that learned and able jurist Judge Mitchell, delivered by him in Morse v. Railroad Co., supra. We adopted the same rule in Lowe v. Elliott, 109 N.C. 581, 14 S.E. 51, and approved what is above quoted from opinion of Mitchell, J in Morse v. Railroad Co., citing three other cases, Dougan v. Transportation Co., 56 N.Y. 1, Sewell v. Cohoes, 11 Hun (N. Y.) 626, and Baird v. Daly, 68 N.Y. 547. The case of Lowe v. Elliott was approved in Myers v. Lumber Co., 129 N.C. 252, 39 S.E. 960; Aiken v. Manufacturing Co., 146 N.C. 324, 59 S.E. 696; Tise v. Thomasville, 151 N.C. 281, 65 S.E. 1007; Boggs v. Mining Co., 162 N.C. 393, 78 S.E. 274. We do not say that there may not be peculiar cases in which such testimony may be relevant, but this is not one of them. Lowe v. Elliott, supra. We have admitted such evidence under special...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tyree v. Tudor
...approved in the more recent case of Baker v. R. R., 144 N.C. 37." See, also, Bagwell v. R. R., 167 N.C. 611, 83 S.E. 814; McMillan v. R. R., 172 N.C. 853, 90 S.E. 683. was quoted with approval in the very recent case of Pusey v. R. R., 181 N.C. 142, 106 S.E. 452. In that case the defendant ......
-
Williams v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
... ... 340, 346, 111 S.E. 714; White v. Realty Co., 182 ... N.C. 536, 109 S.E. 564; Pusey v. Railroad, 181 N.C ... 137, 106 S.E. 452; McMillan v. Railroad, 172 N.C ... 853, 90 S.E. 683; Bagwell v. Railroad, 167 N.C. 611, ... 83 S.E. 814; Baker v. Railroad, 144 N.C. 37, 43, 56 ... S.E ... ...
-
Pusey v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...being approved in the more recent case of Baker v. Railroad, 144 N.C. 37-44." See. also, Bagwell v. Railroad, 167 N.C. 611; McMillan v. Railroad, 172 N.C. 853. In case there is no evidence that Pusey had any control over the car, and therefore none that he was engaged in a joint enterprise ......