Poole v. Southern Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 18706,18706 |
| Parties | Malcolm A. POOLE, Respondent, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and Joyce Poole Barrier, of whom Southern RailwayCompany is, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Francis C. Jones, Lexington, F. Dean Rainey, Greenville, John Gregg McMaster, Robert J. Thomas, Columbia, for appellant.
H. V. Sandifer, John H. Hydrick, Lexington, for respondent.
This case arises out of a grade crossing accident which occurred in a rural area of Lexington County, and the only issue on appeal, necessary to be decided, is whether the defendant-appellant is entitled to judgment in its favor on the ground that the record contains no evidence of actionable negligence on its part. It is elementary that in the decision of this issue the evidence, together with all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, have to be viewed in the light most favorable to the respondent-plaintiff. We, accordingly, review the record and state the facts in the light of such principle.
The plaintiff at the time of his injuries was a passenger in a car driven by his sister, Mrs. Barrier, who was named as a defendant in the action, but as to her there was arranged a covenant not to sue for a consideration of $2,500.00, and the trial proceeded against appellant alone. The verdict of the jury was as follows:
'We the jury find the defendant negligent by not providing sufficient lighting at the crossing in question and award the plaintiff a total sum of $5,000.00 of which $2,500.00 shall be deducted as settlement on behalf of plaintiff.'
The car ran into the side of a moving freight train, somewhere between the engine and the caboose, at some time near 1 A.M. on the morning of June 15, 1963, the precise hour not being established by the evidence. The crossing was located not far from Pelion, South Carolina, and in that vicinity appellant's single track main line from Savannah to Columbia runs north and south, and is crossed at grade by a secondary road known as No. 74, which runs east and west. Approximately a mile to the west of the track State Highway No. 215 runs north and south, approximately parallel to the track. Road 74 commences at Highway No. 215, from a T intersection, and runs eastward over appellant's track.
Road 74 is straight and level from Highway 215 to the crossing, and in the daytime the crossing can be seen from Highway 215. The collision, of course, occurred in the nighttime, but the weather was clear and visibility conditions were good.
The crossing was posted with the usual cross-arm signs which were made of aluminum and reflectorized. In addition, there were the usual Highway Department warning signs of a railroad crossing. Road 74 was an asphalt surfaced farm to market road which was in the process of being widened, and had been, in fact, widened to a width of twenty feet everywhere except at the crossing itself, where the road remained at the old width of fourteen and a half feet, leaving the road 'pinched in' at the crossing. While such work was in progress the Highway Department had placed amber reflectortype barricades on either side of the road at the crossing to give warning of the narrowing of the road. There is no evidence of any obstruction or obstructions to view which have any bearing on the issues, and no evidence of any other automobile traffic in the area at the time.
Plaintiff and his sister lived in a nearby rural area and at the time his sister was taking him to visit his estranged wife. In doing so, she proceeded north on State Highway 215 and turned eastward on Road 74 to the point of collision. Plaintiff was asleep at the time of the collision. His sister, Mrs. Barrier, testified that she was driving eastward on Road 74 at a speed of 50 to 60 miles an hour, with dim lights, and that when she approached the tracks she put them on bright and saw the train moving over the crossing. She did not know what distance she was from the crossing at the moment, but by reference to a plat, fixed the distance at some one hundred sixty to seventy feet from the near rail of the track. All she saw on the track was boxcars in movement from south to north and she never saw the engine or caboose. She applied her brakes and kept them on until the collision. She and plaintiff remained in or about the car until about 5 A.M. before summoning help, although she sustained only minor injuries.
The members of the train crew were unaware of the collision until some days later, and by that time the train cars had been dispersed, so that appellant was unable to make any investigation as to which car in the train had been struck by the automobile. It was, however, established that train No. 156 from Savannah to Columbia was the only northbound train which could have passed the crossing during the period of time involved. Such train consisted of three diesel units, 75 cars and a caboose, the train being approximately three-quarters of a mile long.
A highway patrolman, who investigated later that morning, found skid marks one hundred twenty-five feet in length leading to the point of impact, and the automobile, with the right side thereof demolished, some one hundred forty-seven feet to the left or north of the point of impact and next to the track.
Plaintiff offered no evidence as to the speed of the train. Since we have to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we take the lowest speed, 30 miles per hour, testified to by any witness for the appellant, for the purpose of calculating the maximum amount of time that the moving train could have occupied the crossing. Simple calculation shows that at such rate of speed, the train being three-quarters of a mile in length, the moving train would have occupied the crossing a maximum of ninety seconds. Since Mrs. Barrier, at the rate of speed she testified to, would have taken approximately one minute to travel from Highway 215 to the crossing, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Asbury
...with proper lights cannot, or might not, be able to see the cars of the train in time to avoid a collision. Poole v. Southern Railway Company, 250 S.C. 213, 157 S.E.2d 175 (1967). Still testified he did not see the train in time to stop, although he was driving between 50 and 55 miles per h......
-
State v. Seay
...S.E.2d 604; Beverly v. Sarvis, 246 S.C. 470, 144 S.E.2d 220; Kimbrell v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 248 S.C. 365, 150 S.E.2d 79; Poole v. Southern Ry. Co., 250 S.C. 213, 157 S.E.2d 175. While the author is aware of no criminal case in which the foregoing principle has been applied there is all the more r......
-
Gant v. CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
...467, 140 N.W.2d 567 (1966); Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Wagner, 400 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Civ.App., 1966); Poole v. Southern Ry. Co., 250 S.C. 213, 157 S.E.2d 175 (1967). The Court also refused to submit allegations of negligence on the part of the defendant in failing to sound a whistl......
-
Still v. Hampton and Branchville R. R., 19421
...With respect to this doctrine and the exception to it in case of unusual hazard, in the recent case of Poole v. Southern Railway Company, 250 S.C. 213, 157 S.E.2d 175 (1967), we quoted from Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Williams, 242 Miss. 586, 135 So.2d 831, the following statement ......