Ross v. Sibley, L. B. & S. Ry. Co
| Decision Date | 12 March 1906 |
| Docket Number | 15,781 |
| Citation | 41 So. 93,116 La. 789 |
| Parties | ROSS v. SIBLEY, L. B. & S. RY. CO |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 9, 1906.
Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Webster Richard Cleveland Drew, Judge.
Action by J. H. Ross against the Sibley, Lake Bisteneau & Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Stewart & Stewart and William Rufus Cowley, for appellant.
Lynn Kyle Watkins and Roberts & Roberts, for appellee.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries.
There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $ 2,500, and defendant has appealed.
Plaintiff, a man 52 years of age, was struck by the pilot of the locomotive when crossing the track of defendant company in the village of Sibley, sometimes called Lanesville.
Plaintiff was struck on the left leg, which was fractured above the ankle.
It appears that, when the collision took place, plaintiff had nearly crossed the track; his right foot being beyond the rail. In a second, or a fraction of a second, he would have been safe from danger.
The place of accident was directly in front of the store or shop of the Lanesville Mercantile Company. The distance from the front door of the building to the end of the ties was 12 feet, and to the rail 13 1/2 feet. The track of the defendant railway company coming from the south and rear makes a sharp curve at this point.
The degree of this curvature may be illustrated by the fact that a person standing one step from the front door of the building can see only 41 feet down the track. Defendant at this particular place has no right of way beyond the ground covered by its roadbed.
Immediately beyond the track on the northwest were several buildings occupied for business purposes.
In front of the store of the mercantile company there was a passway across the track of defendant company.
This passway was constantly used by the public.
Plaintiff was employed as a clerk in the store of the mercantile company, and on the morning of the accident crossed the track for the purpose of seeing the driver of the mail wagon and getting him to carry a large side of meat to another store belonging to the same company.
On returning plaintiff looked down the track and saw nothing. He then crossed over to the store, and, getting the side of meat, which had been put in a sack, raised it with both hands above his left shoulder, and, one step from the door, turned and looked down the track. He saw nothing, and proceeded immediately along the usual passway across the track. He did not stop and look again before stepping on the track, and in endeavoring to cross was struck and injured as already stated.
Plaintiff was hard of hearing to the extent that he had to use an ear trumpet. The sack of meat, carried as it was, prevented him from turning his head and looking down the track as he walked along. Plaintiff did not look at the proper time and place, and candidly admits that, if he had stopped and looked short of the track, he would not have been injured.
Plaintiff was guilty of negligence, and the question is whether defendant's servants could by ordinary care have avoided the consequences of his negligence.
It appears that defendant's road is not the ordinary freight and passenger railways. Its principal traffic is in lumber, and it carries passengers in the caboose attached to its freight trains. Defendant's railway connects with the Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific and the Louisiana & Arkansas Railway at Sibley Junction.
On the morning in question defendant's train had made its regular run to and from the depot of the Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway, and a part of the train, consisting of a locomotive and tender, a box car, and a caboose, was coming back towards the depot. On this train were an engineer, fireman, and two brakemen.
Abe Hess, the head brakeman, was standing on the pilot of the engine. Hess did not see plaintiff until he stepped on the track, some 15 or 20 feet in front of the pilot. Hess shouted, but plaintiff paid no attention, and was struck as he was in the act of stepping off on the far side.
The train was running 4 or 5 miles an hour. Hess was looking at the Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific train coming in, and did not see plaintiff coming from the store. As the pilot struck plaintiff, Hess in his excitement jumped off and ran 30 or 40 feet down the track. When Hess stopped and turned, he saw the plaintiff lying on the ground back of the pilot, and about the gangway or step or cab of the engine.
The foregoing is a synopsis of the material part of Hess' testimony. He and other witnesses stated that plaintiff on several occasions had been warned off the track when trains were approaching.
The substance of the testimony of Charles Matterson, the engineer, as far as pertinent to the inquiry, may be epitomized as follows:
The train in his charge was running without steam downgrade, and the fireman was ringing the bell. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibbons v. N. O. Terminal Co.
... ... vs. Vicksburg S. and P. Ry. Company, 144 La. 427, 80 So ... Lampkin ... vs. McCormick, 105 La. 418, 29 So. 952 ... Ross ... vs. Sibley, 116 La. 789, 41 So. 93 ... It is ... not required, that under the jurisprudence of this State, ... that vehicles should ... ...
-
Renz v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
...function is to find facts relating to negligence, contributory negligence, last clear chance, and damages. In the case of Ross v. Sibley, 116 La. 789, 41 So. 93, 95, the Supreme Court stated: "The question of negligence was one of fact, and we are not prepared to say that a verdict of the j......
-
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Hanna
... ... 1143; Davidson v. Illinois Central ... Railroad, 124 La. 49 So. 1015; Florida Cent. & P. R ... R. Co. v. Williams, 37 Fla. 406, 20 So. 558; Ross v ... Sibley L. B. & S. Ry. Co., 116 La. 41 So. 93; Jones ... v. McKay Telegraph Co. et al., 137. 68 So. 379; Hammers ... v. Colorado Southern R ... ...
-
Simon v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 92
...function is to find facts relating to negligence, contributory negligence, last clear chance and damages. In the case of Ross v. Sibley, 116 La. 789, 41 So. 93, 95, the Supreme Court stated: 'The question of negligence was one of fact, and we are not prepared to say that a verdict of the ju......