Parker v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 244
| Decision Date | 11 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 244,244 |
| Citation | 61 S.E.2d 370,232 N.C. 472 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | PARKER, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
Dees & Dees, Goldsboro, for plaintiff appellee.
Bland & Bland, Goldsboro, and W. B. R. Guion, New Bern, for defendant appellant.
Plaintiff was thoroughly familiar with the crossing at which the accident occurred. The road was a pathway across his farm which extended across the railroad tracks to the west. He used the crossing frequently in going to and from town and from one part of his farm to another. On the day of the accident he was on his way to that part of his farm which lies to the west of the railroad. He stopped at a point near the track where he could see to the north for a distance of 75 or 80 yards, yet he did not see the train until it was within 25 or 30 feet of him. When he stopped, he first looked to the north and then to the south and then proceeded toward the track without again looking north. Had he proceeded to a point just beyond the bank as he could have done in safety, he would have had an unobstructed vision to the north for a distance variously estimated from one-half to two miles. In this connection his wife testified:
Thus, the plaintiff having looked one time, looked no more. He could have stopped in safety at a point which would have afforded him a clear vision. Though he could have seen the train 80 yards or 240 feet away, he did not see it until it was right on him--25 or 30 feet away. While he was traversing 8 or 10 feet, the train, traveling at about 50 miles per hour, went a distance of 240 feet--or so he testified.
On these facts decision is controlled by the line of cases represented by Harrison v. North Carolina R. R., 194 N.C. 656, 140 S.E. 598; Godwin v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 220 N.C. 281, 17 S.E.2d 137; Miller v. North Carolina R. R., 220 N.C. 562, 18 S.E.2d 232; Eller v. North Carolina R. R., 200 N.C. 527, 157 S.E. 800; and McCrimmon v. Powell, 221 N.C. 216, 19 S.E.2d 880. Plaintiff knew he was approaching a zone of danger. He had timely opportunity to see the approaching train and avoid the collision. His failure to do so constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law.
It does not suffice to say that plaintiff stopped, looked, and listened. His looking and listening must be timely, McCrimmon v. Powell, supra, so that his precaution will be effective. Godwin v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., supra. It was his duty to 'look attentively, up and down the track,' in time to save himself, if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixon v. CSX Transp., Inc.
...had unobstructed view of approaching train when within twenty-seven to thirty feet of crossing); Parker v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 232 N.C. 472, 61 S.E.2d 370 (1950) (plaintiff had unobstructed view of approaching train when within fifteen feet of crossing); Jeffries v. Powell, 221 N.C.......
-
Morrisette v. A. G. Boone Co.
...220 N.C. 281, 17 S.E.2d 137; R. B. McRoy & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 234 N.C. 672, 68 S.E.2d 405. In Parker v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 232 N.C. 472, 61 S.E.2d 370, 371, the plaintiff looked for the train and did not see it, but did not look at a nearer point from which he could......
-
Dowdy v. Southern Ry. Co.
...Southern R. Co., 232 N.C. 183, 59 S.E.2d 782 (unobstructed view 24 feet and 8 inches from East rail of track); Parker v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 232 N.C. 472 61 S.E.2d 370, (unobstructed view after he stopped 8 or 10 feet from East rail); Herndon v. North Carolina R. Co., 234 N.C. 9, 65......
-
Arvin v. McClintock
...traveller must yield the right of way to the railroad company in the ordinary course of its business.' 8. In Parker v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 232 N.C. 472, 61 S.E.2d 370, 371, the Court said: 'It does not suffice to say that plaintiff stopped, looked and listened. His looking and liste......