New Orleans, Mobile & Chicago R. Co. v. Harrison, 16031

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtCOOK, J.
Citation61 So. 655,105 Miss. 18
PartiesNEW ORLEANS, MOBILE & CHICAGO RAILROAD CO. v. B. P. HARRISON, ET AL
Docket Number16031
Decision Date21 April 1913

61 So. 655

105 Miss. 18

NEW ORLEANS, MOBILE & CHICAGO RAILROAD CO.
v.
B. P. HARRISON, ET AL

No. 16031

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 21, 1913


APPEAL from the circuit court of Neshoba county, HON. C. L. DOBBS, Judge.

Suit by B. P. Harrison and others against the New Orleans, Mobile & Chicago Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Flowers, Alexander & Whitfield and J. T. Brown, for appellant.

G. E. Wilson, for appellee.

No brief of counsel on either side found in the record.

OPINION

[105 Miss. 19] COOK, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Neshoba county, awarding appellee damages for the alleged negligent killing of H. M. Harrison. The train which killed deceased was southbound, and from the point where deceased was killed to a point about one mile north the track was straight and the view unobstructed. Just how the killing occurred was related by the engineer and fireman of the locomotive. The engineer testified that he was on the lookout all the time, and that he did not discover deceased's peril until he was about seventy-five yards from him, and that when he did discover his peril he applied the emergency brakes, opened the sandcocks, reversed the engine, and sounded the cattle alarm; in short, he did everything possible to prevent the accident. In this the engineer was corroborated by the fireman.

Plaintiff introduced several witnesses, who testified that they had made experiments on the ground, to ascertain how far deceased could have been seen, lying on the ground between the rails, as the engineer said he was at the time he was run over and killed. These witnesses agreed that, standing on the ground, the deceased could have been seen, and a man lying on the ground at the spot where deceased was placed by the engineer was seen and recognized by them, as a man, while they were two hundred yards from the scene of the tragedy. Undoubtedly, deceased was a trespasser, and was also unconscious at the time he was killed. The testimony warrants the inference [105 Miss. 20] that he was in a drunken stupor, asleep on the railroad track.

By a long line of decisions this court has held to the doctrine that the railroad owes no duty to a trespasser until his peril is discovered; that, as to trespassers, it is not the duty to keep a lookout. If there is any principle of law settled by this court, it is that principle. As a corollary to this well-settled rule is the further rule that the railroad company must not wantonly or willfully injure a trespasser upon its tracks. These two rules are reasonable and just, and are not applicable to railroads but measure the liability of everybody similarly situated. In this case the engineer testified that he was on the lookout for obstructions, but, that he did not see and identify deceased until it was too late to prevent the accident. The evidence of others tends to show that if the engineer was on the lookout, as he said he was, he was obliged to have seen deceased at least two hundred yards away. This evidence was submitted to a jury, and they must have disbelieved the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Aultman, 31636
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1935
    ...416; N. O. & G. N. R. R. v. Branton, 146 So. 870; M. P. R. R. v. Hanna, 152 So. 282; R. R. v. Hawkins, 82 Miss. 209; R. R. v. Harrison, 105 Miss. 18; G. & S. I. v. Williamson, 139 So. 601; Y. & M. V. v. Daily, 127 So. 575. It was a question for the jury even under the emergency doctrine whi......
  • Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Bond, 33050
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 7, 1938
    ...his presence on the track. I. C. R. R. Co. v. Ash, 128 Miss, 410, 90 So. 31; New [181 Miss. 259] Orleans M. & C. R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 105 Miss. 18, 61 So. 655; Hubbard v. Southern Ry., 120 Miss. 834, 83 So. 247; Burks v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co., 153 Miss. 428, 121 So. 120; Fuller v. I. C. R.......
  • Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co. v. Daniell, 16487
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • December 7, 1914
    ...62. So. 643; C. I. Co. v. Stead, 95 U.S. 161, 24 L.Ed. 403; R. R. Co. v. Carroll, 103 Miss. 830; N. O., M. & C. R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 61 So. 655; N. O., M. & C. R. R. Co. v. Cole, 101 Miss. 173; Railroad Company v. Brooks, 85 Miss. 275, 38 So. 40; Yazoo R. Co. v. Landrum, 89 Miss. 399, 42 ......
  • New Orleans & G. N. R. Co. v. Walden, 28713
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 23, 1931
    ...his injury, and the jury has the right to, and does, reject the defendant's rebutting evidence. New Orleans, M. & C. R. Co. v. Harrison, 105 Miss. 18, 61 So. 655. What form the court's instruction to the jury, if any, should take in such a case is not before us, and no opinion is expressed ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Aultman, 31636
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1935
    ...416; N. O. & G. N. R. R. v. Branton, 146 So. 870; M. P. R. R. v. Hanna, 152 So. 282; R. R. v. Hawkins, 82 Miss. 209; R. R. v. Harrison, 105 Miss. 18; G. & S. I. v. Williamson, 139 So. 601; Y. & M. V. v. Daily, 127 So. 575. It was a question for the jury even under the emergency doctrine whi......
  • Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Bond, 33050
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 7, 1938
    ...his presence on the track. I. C. R. R. Co. v. Ash, 128 Miss, 410, 90 So. 31; New [181 Miss. 259] Orleans M. & C. R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 105 Miss. 18, 61 So. 655; Hubbard v. Southern Ry., 120 Miss. 834, 83 So. 247; Burks v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co., 153 Miss. 428, 121 So. 120; Fuller v. I. C. R.......
  • Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co. v. Daniell, 16487
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • December 7, 1914
    ...62. So. 643; C. I. Co. v. Stead, 95 U.S. 161, 24 L.Ed. 403; R. R. Co. v. Carroll, 103 Miss. 830; N. O., M. & C. R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 61 So. 655; N. O., M. & C. R. R. Co. v. Cole, 101 Miss. 173; Railroad Company v. Brooks, 85 Miss. 275, 38 So. 40; Yazoo R. Co. v. Landrum, 89 Miss. 399, 42 ......
  • New Orleans & G. N. R. Co. v. Walden, 28713
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 23, 1931
    ...his injury, and the jury has the right to, and does, reject the defendant's rebutting evidence. New Orleans, M. & C. R. Co. v. Harrison, 105 Miss. 18, 61 So. 655. What form the court's instruction to the jury, if any, should take in such a case is not before us, and no opinion is expressed ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT