Richmond & D. R. Co v. Tribble's Adm'r
| Decision Date | 19 March 1896 |
| Citation | 24 S.E. 278 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | RICHMOND & D. R. CO. v. TRIBBLE'S ADM'R. |
Master and Servant — Railroad Companies — Collision between Sections of Parted Train—Proximate Cause.
In an action for the death of plaintiff's decedent, in a collision between the two sections of a train which parted on account of defective couplings, it appeared that decedent was riding with another brakeman upon the rear section; that the flat car on which they were riding was the second car of their section, a box car being in front of them; that, after the train parted, the sections ran for five miles before the collision, a part of the distance being over an ascending grade. The section upon which decedent was riding was properly supplied with brakes, and could have been stopped if even one brake had been applied. The engineer failed to keep his train in motion, as required by a rule of the defendant company, until he knew that the rear section had been stopped. Held, that the proximate cause of the collision was either the negligence of decedent or his fellow brakeman in failing to stop the rear section, or the negligence of the engineer in stopping the first section before he knew the rear section had stopped, and not the defective couplings, and therefore, as a matter of law, defendant was not liable. Buchanan and Harrison, JJ., dissenting.
Error to circuit court, Culpeper county.
Action by Thaddeus G. Tribble, administrator of Edward Tribble, against the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
W. H. Payne and Leonard Marbury, for plaintiff in error.
Rixey & Barbour and John M. Johnson, for defendant in error.
KEITH, J. Thaddeus G. Tribble, administrator of Edward Tribble, deceased, brought an action of trespass on the case in the circuit court of Culpeper county against the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company, in which he alleges that, in October, 1890, his intestate, Edward Tribble, while engaged as a brakeman on the train of the defendant company, was killed through the negligence of the defendant, and therefore sues to recover damages. The particular negligence of which complaint is made is stated in the declaration to be that the coupling, links, and pins were unsafe, unsound, and defective; that the caboose or conductor's car of the train was not wide enough to permit the green lights, carried on each side of It in the nighttime, to be seen by the engineer of the train when moving upon a straight track; that the whistle of the engine, with which signals are communicated by the engineer, was so defective as to be wholly insufficient for the purpose for which it was designed; that, by reason of the defective link or coupling pin, the train parted, and by reason of the narrowness of the caboose car the signal lights were invisible to the engineer, and by reason of the insufficiency of the whistle he was not able to communicate the situation to the brakeman, by reason whereof, the train having parted, and the two sections subsequently coming together with great violence, the plaintiff's intestate, while engaged in the discharge of his duty, without fault or blame upon his part, was caught between the cars, and so crushed and mangled that he then and there died from the injury. There are several counts in the declaration, but this is a sufficient statement of what they contain. Upon the trial, after the evidence had been introduced, the defendant filed a demurrer to the evidence, and thereupon the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the defendant's demurrer, and assessed his damages at $4,500. Upon this verdict the circuit court entered a judgment, and thereupon the defendant applied for and obtained a writ of error from one of the judges of this court.
It appears that, upon the day of the accident, the train upon which defendant's intestate was employed left the city of Alexandria, going in the direction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Price
...act of the defendant or its employees, otherwise no cause of action for the injury can be maintained. 1 White, Personal Injuries, par. 39; 24 S.E. 278; 36 N.Y.S. 926; Mich. 72; 60 N.W. 286; 44 N.E. 273; 72 N.Y.S. 501; 58 S.W. 151. J. C. Ross, for appellee. The proof is positive both that it......
-
Mccoy v. Norfolk & C R. Co
...to trace it to that which is remote. Cooley Torts, p. 73' Railway Co. v. Brown, 91 Va. 668, 672, 673, 22 S. E. 496; Railroad Co. v. Tribble's Adm'r (Va.) 24 S. E. 278, 279. The instructions under consideration do not clearly, if at all, bring this distinction to the attention of the jury. P......
- James v. Life