Richmond Co v. Powers

Decision Date17 April 1893
Docket NumberNo. 200,200
PartiesRICHMOND & D. R. CO. v. POWERS et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Action in the city court of Atlanta, Ga., by Maggie L. Powers, Homer W. Powers, and Lula W. Powers, by their next friend and guardian ad litem, C. F. Reed, against the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company, to recover for the death of plaintiffs' father, caused by defendant's negligence. Defendant removed the cause to a federal court, where verdict and judgment were given for plaintiffs. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Statement by Mr. Justice BREWER:

On April 11, 1886, W. D. Powers was run over by a train belonging to the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company, at a station known as 'Lula,' and so injured that he died in a few hours. This action was brought to recover damages therefor. The plaintiffs are his children, and the proper parties, under the Georgia statutes, to maintain the action. It was commenced in the city court of Atlanta, Ga., and thence removed by the defendant to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Georgia. A trial was had in November, 1888, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for $9,800. On the trial the defendant asked the following instruction:

'The undisputed fact exists in this case that the deceased man, Powers, being at the time about forty-five years of age, and, so far as the evidence discloses, in full possession of all his faculties, deliberately stepped upon the railroad track immediately in front of an engine which was running towards him at the rate of five or six miles an hour, and not more than ten feet off, and was almost instantly run over and killed.

'To say that this was an ordinarily careful act, or that this conduct was not negligence on his part, would do violence to a plain and well-settled principle of law. Admitting that he was a passenger, and therefore not bound, as a traveler on the highway approaching a crossing would be bound, to listen and to look both ways before attempting to cross the track, still the immediate presence, within a few feet, of a moving locomotive, would, it seems to me, have awakened all the senses of an ordinarily careful man, and would have warned him, in more ways than one, that he ought not to put himself on the track, right in front of it.

'It cannot be doubted that this was a careless and dangerous step. If he had been ordinarily careful, he would not have been killed or injured, even if the defendant was negligent. There is nothing in the other testimony in the case which relieves him from the consequences of this act of negligence. If he had not died, and had brought suit, he could not have recovered, nor can these plaintiffs recover, under these facts, and it is therefore your duty, under the law, to find a verdict for the defendant.'

The instruction was refused, and exception duly taken.

Henry Jackson and Pope Barrow, for plaintiff in error.

Hoke Smith, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

The only error assigned is in the refusal of the court to instruct the jury, as requested, substantially, that the deceased was guilty of such contributory negligence as to prevent a recovery. It is well settled that, where there is uncertainty as to the existence of either negligence or contributory negligence, the question is not one of law, but of fact, and to be settled by a jury; and this whether the uncertainty arises from a conflict in the testimony, or because, the facts being undisputed, fair-minded men will honestly draw different conclusions from them. Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657; Railroad Co. v. McDade, 135 U. S. 554, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1044; Railroad Co. v. Converse, 139 U. S. 469, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 569.

No objection is made to the instructions which were given, no suggestion that the law as to negligence and contributory negligence was not properly stated to the jury; so we have the question whether the facts, as developed by the testimony, were such as to compel a declaration, as a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
173 cases
  • Keller v. Brooklyn Bus Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 27, 1942
    ...720; Slocum v. New York Life Ins. Co., 228 U.S. 364, 33 S.Ct. 523, 57 L.Ed. 879, Ann.Cas.1914D, 1029; Richmond & Danville Railroad v. Powers, 149 U.S. 43, 13 S.Ct. 748, 37 L. Ed. 642; Sioux City & P. Railroad Company v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, 663, 664, 21 L.Ed. 745. To use an expressive stree......
  • Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith, 6 Div. 603.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1939
    ... ... of information available and, on its own motion, exercise ... [192 So. 591] ... the full measure of its powers of investigation, and if it ... should clearly appear that for any reason suggested there ... could be no recovery, such court should not hesitate ... honestly draw different conclusions from them, the question ... is not one of law, but of fact to be settled by the jury ... Richmond & Danville R. Co. v. Powers, 149 U.S. 43, ... 45 [13 S.Ct. 748, 37 L.Ed. 642]; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co ... v. Harvey, 228 U.S. 319, 324 [33 S.Ct ... ...
  • Galloway v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1943
    ...methods which courts have used in reaching that result.' 21 This Court has said of one type of case in Richmond & D.R.R. v. Powers, 1893, 149 U.S. 43, 45, 13 S.Ct. 748, 749, 37 L.Ed. 642: 'It is well settled that, where there is uncertainty as to the existence of either negligence or contri......
  • Alexander v. Jennings
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1966
    ...different conclusions from them, the question is not one of law but of fact to be settled by the jury. Richmond & Danville R. Co. v. Powers, 149 U.S. 43, 45 (13 S.Ct. 748, 37 L.Ed. 642); Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Harvey, 228 U.S. 319, 324 (33 S.Ct. 518, 57 L.Ed. 852); Gunning v. Cooley, 28......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT