Prescott v. Hines
| Decision Date | 28 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 10451. |
| Parties | PRESCOTT v. HINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Richland County Court; M. S. Whaley, Judge.
Action by W. S. Prescott against Walker D. Hines as Director General of Railroads, for personal injury from collision with a train, standing across a street, of an automobile, belonging to and driven by another, in which plaintiff was riding. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Barnett & McDonald, of Columbia, for appellant.
Paul A Cooper and E. J. Best, both of Columbia, for respondent.
This is an action for personal injuries, and was tried before County Judge Whaley and a jury at the January term of court, 1920 and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $1,667.75. At close of plaintiff's evidence a motion for nonsuit was made by the defendant, which motion was overruled. At the close of the case a motion for a directed verdict was made by the defendant, which motion was refused. After entry of judgment, defendant appealed and by 10 exceptions imputes error.
Appellant in his argument says:
As to the first group of exceptions: There was some evidence by which it was reasonable to infer that there was actionable negligence on the part of the defendant. There was evidence that the train was standing still, blocking one of the most traveled streets in the city of Columbia, and that the cars had no light of any kind upon them, or near them, or any guard or watchman to give warning; that on the night in question there was a fog or smoke, that made the place where the cars were standing dark, and obscuring the same. This was evidence on the part of the plaintiff. No railroad man in charge of the train, and present at the time of the inquiry, was put on the witness stand to deny the same. Under all of the evidence in the case, his honor could not have granted a nonsuit, or directed verdict, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dimond v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
... ... 737; Mann v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 43 Ga.App. 708, ... 160 S.E. 131; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v ... Marti, 183 S.W. 846; Prescott v. Hines, 114 ... S.C. 262, 103 S.E. 543; Myers v. A. Coast Line Ry ... Co., 172 S.C. 236, 173 S.E. 812; Rober v. So. Ry ... Co., 151 S.C ... ...
-
Miller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... and this would have warranted its submission to the jury ... under the statute. Code 1922, vol. 3, §§ 4903, 4925; ... Wideman v. Hines", 117 S.C. 519, 109 S.E ... [138 S.E. 690] ... 123; ... Bain v. N.W. R. Co., 120 S.C. 373, 113 S.E. 277 ... \xC2" ... Wideman v. Hines, 117 S.C. 519, 520, 109 S.E. 123 ... (1-6); Bain v. N.W. R. Co., 120 S.C. 373, 374, 113 ... S.E. 277 (1 and 2); Prescott v. Hines, 114 S.C. 262, ... 103 S.E. 543; Callison v. C. & W. C. R. Co., 106 ... S.C. 129, 90 S.E. 260; Peeples v. S. A. L. Ry., 115 ... S.C ... ...
-
Los Angeles & S.L.R. Co. v. Lytle
...leaving it without taking adequate precautions to warn approaching motorists of the danger, amounted to negligence. In Prescott v. Hines, 114 S.C. 262, 103 S.E. 543, action was for personal injury from collision of an automobile with a train standing across the street. There was evidence th......
-
Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... trespasser. Having brought about the necessity, it cannot ... take advantage of its own wrong." ... In ... Prescott v. Hines, Director General of Railroads, ... 114 S.C. 262, 103 S.E. 543, the injuries to the plaintiff ... occurred in a collision between an ... ...