Radcliff v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 February 1921
• Docket Number: 1800.
• Citation: 271 F. 304
• Parties: RADCLIFF v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

271 F. 304

RADCLIFF v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

No. 1800.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

February 1, 1921

E. O De Pass and Alfred Wallace, Jr., both of Columbia, S.C., for plaintiff in error.

Douglas McKay, of Columbia, S.C. (Barron, McKay, Frierson & McCants of Columbia, S.C., P. A. Willcox, of Florence, S.C., and Lucian W. McLemore, of Sumter, S.C., on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before PRITCHARD, KNAPP, and WOODS, Circuit Judges.

KNAPP Circuit Judge.

In this action of negligence the trial court on plaintiff's proofs ordered a nonsuit, and error is assigned. These facts appear:

Gilliam Hall, plaintiff's intestate, a private in the National Guard of South Carolina, was one of a squad assigned to guard defendant's bridge across the Black river near Kingstree in that state. At midnight of May 7, 1917, he was posted as sentinel about 150 or 200 yards from the end of the span over the river, north of the trestle and on the west side of the track. Four hours later, when the guard was changed, and just where the trestle and embankment came together, he was found dead beside the track, lying on his back, his feet nearly touching the steel rail, his right foot cut and the left side of his head crushed in, his broken rifle underneath him. At the place where he was stationed the space between the ends of the ties and slope of the bank was rather narrow. The night was windy and cool, and he had built a fire, as was allowed, which was still smouldering when his body was discovered. The wind 'made a roaring in the tree tops,' as one witness says, and there was the noise of the running river.

During the four hours after Hall was posted some six trains passed in one or the other direction, running fast, according to the testimony, and giving no signals as they came to the bridge. But it does not appear that trains were accustomed to reduce speed in crossing this bridge, or to give any signals as they approached it. In short, there is no proof which shows or suggests that the operation of these trains that night was in any respect different from their usual and normal operation at that point; and with this Hall was quite familiar, for he had been doing sentry duty there for a week or ten days before he met his death.

In our judgment the mere statement of what was shown decides the case without the need of argument. Assuming that Hall was killed by a passing train, as is no...