Sherrill v. Southern Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 December 1905 |
| Citation | Sherrill v. Southern Ry. Co., 52 S.E. 940, 140 N.C. 252 (N.C. 1905) |
| Parties | SHERRILL v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Catawba County; Councill, Judge.
Action by A. H. Sherrill against the Southern Railway Company.At the close of plaintiff's case, the court directed a nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals.Reversed.
Plaintiff was employed by contract to construct a union depot for defendant and another railroad at a junction; his duty requiring him to work almost on the track, and frequently requiring him to be on and across it.While so engaged, he was run over by defendant's engine, which came upon him without giving the warning required by custom and rules of the company.Plaintiff had just looked both ways and listened without seeing any train on defendant's track, when he started to walk a short distance across the same, and within five or six seconds from the time he looked was struck and injured.Held, that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in failing to look a second time just prior to his stepping onto the track.
Civil action for personal injuries, caused by alleged negligence of defendant.The ordinary issues were raised by the pleadings.There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was at the time of the injury engaged in superintending the construction of a union depot at Helena, Ga., for the defendant and the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company.The tracks of the two railroads crossed each other at right angles, and the depot was being constructed in one of the angles and within a few feet of the tracks, and within the yard limits of the defendant at that point.The plaintiff's duties required him to cross and recross the defendant's track at frequent intervals in order to properly superintend the construction of the work.The depot which was being built had two fronts, one facing the track of the defendant, and the other the track of the Seaboard.The defendant's employés were accustomed to give warning of the approach of the trains at this point by sounding the whistle and ringing the bell, and the rules of the company required that adequate warning should be given.On the occasion when the plaintiff was injured, no warning of any kind was given, and the plaintiff, in endeavoring to cross the track, was struck by one of the defendant's trains and severely injured.The plaintiff, who was the only witness examined, speaking to the main features of the charge testified as follows: On cross-examination he stated that, when he started down the Southern track the last time, he was 10 or 12 feet from the Seaboard track, and looked both ways.He then walked nearly 30 feet before he undertook to cross, or something like 20 feet, and did not look back again.He walked down the track and ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting