Powers v. Grand Trunk Rt. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 February 1906
• Citation: 78 Vt. 436,63 A. 139
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: POWERS v. GRAND TRUNK RT. CO.

63 A. 139

78 Vt. 436

POWERS

v. GRAND TRUNK RT. CO.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Essex.

Feb. 16, 1906.

Exceptions from Essex County Court: Seneca Haselton, Judge.

Action by Patrick T. Powers against the Grand Trunk Railway Company. A verdict was ordered for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Affirmed.

Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, START, WATSON, POWERS, and MILES, JJ.

H. W. Blake and J. W. Redmond, for plaintiff. L. L. Hight and H. B. Amey, for defendant

MUNSON, J. The engine of which the plaintiff complained was passing slowly in a westerly direction from the turntable at the roundhouse in defendant's yard at Island Pond to the first side track, to be attached to a train. The road upon which the plaintiff was traveling, tracing it from the east, crossed the track on which the engine was running just west of the roundhouse, ran close beside the track on the right-hand side some over 100 feet, and then turned directly across it. The entire length of the track from the turntable to the second crossing was about 300 feet. The wagon in which plaintiff was riding was going in the same direction as the engine, went over the first crossing after the engine had passed, overtook and passed the engine on the section between the two crossings, and was wrecked on the first rail at the further edge of the second crossing; the engine being brought to a stop when it covered about one quarter of the crossing. The horse was frightened by escaping steam as it came up with the engine, thereupon hastened its speed despite the efforts of the driver, and came upon the crossing in the manner indicated. It is claimed that the defendant was negligent in permitting the steam to escape. At the close of all the evidence a verdict was directed for the defendant. The defendant stands solely upon the ground that there was no evidence tending to show negligence on its part.

The engineer testified that as he approached the crossing he was in his place on the right side of the engine, with his head out of the cab window, and looking forward; that there was an escape of steam from the cylinders; that he did not see the team until it got right under, or a little forward of, his cab window; and that as soon as he saw it he stopped the engine. Plaintiff's attorney cross-examined the witness as to when the cylinder cocks were opened and when closed, and there was some confusion in his answers as first given; but on a final cross-examination as to his meaning...