Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | 13607. |
| Parties | MYERS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County; R. W Sharkey, County Judge.
Action by Delon Myers against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
F. L Willcox, of Florence, for appellant.
Truluck & Truluck, of Olanta, and P. H. McEachin, of Florence, for respondent.
This action was brought by plaintiff for the recovery of damages for personal injuries suffered by him. Paragraph 2 of the complaint reads as follows: "That on the night of May 23, 1931, plaintiff while traveling in a Ford coupé on a public highway in Richland County, South Carolina, leading from State Highway No. 76 toward the line of defendant at Congaree Station, which highway crosses defendant's line approximately one hundred fifty (150) yards from the said Congaree Station, was injured when the Ford coupé in which he was riding collided with and struck a box car which was a part of a train of defendant in operation upon the said line and which train the defendant had unlawfully, negligently recklessly, carelessly and wilfully stopped on, upon and across the said public road, completely blocking and obstructing the same in the night time."
In the complaint plaintiff's injuries are also referred to the alleged negligence and willfulness of the defendant, inter alia: "In failing to place any post or sign upon the said highway, upon the side plaintiff was traveling, in failing to flag the said crossing, and in failing to give any warning, notice, signs or signals to apprise strangers traveling said highway of the approach of a railroad with the crossing blocked in the night time." The answer admitted a collision between an automobile driven by plaintiff and one of defendant's trains, but alleged that the injury complained of was caused by plaintiff's own acts of negligence and recklessness. The trial of the case resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $500, and the defendant appeals.
By its first exception, the appellant charges the trial judge with error in refusing its motion to strike from the complaint, as irrelevant and redundant and as not stating a cause of action, the following language: "In failing to place any post or sign upon the said highway, upon the side plaintiff was traveling." The specification of error is that, "since there is no requirement, statutory or otherwise, that a railroad company shall place more than one signal board at each crossing of a railroad track by a public highway," its failure to do so does not constitute actionable negligence.
It is admitted that the railroad company maintained at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial