Simons' Adm'r v. Southern Ry. Co
| Decision Date | 16 June 1898 |
| Citation | 96 Va. 152,31 S.E. 7 |
| Parties | SIMONS' ADM'R . v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Railroads—Signals at Crossings—Compliance with Statute — Contributory Negligence — Demurrers to Evidence—Causal Connection.
1. The failure to sound the whistle of an approaching locomotive at least twice, sharply, not less than 300 yards before a highway crossing, as required by Acts Assem. 1893-94, p. 827, constitutes negligence; and the fact that, 484 yards from the crossing, a loud long blast was blown, which was claimed to be a more efficient warning than the two sharp blasts, cannot be said, as a matter of law, to be a sufficient substitute for the signal required by the statute.
2. Plaintiff's intestate, while driving on a dark night, approached a railway where the highway crossed it obliquely, and where the view was obstructed by the woods until within 80 feet of the center of the track. The horse had been driven some 40 miles, and was moving slowly along the highway, while intestate was looking out for the crossing and listening for trains. Held, that where killed while crossing the track, without warning, intestate was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
3. On a demurrer to the evidence, the court is required to make all the presumptions that the jury might have made had not the case been withdrawn from it.
4. A railroad company on a dark night failed to blow a whistle, as required by statute, at crossings, and ran over intestate, who was slowly driving across the track and listening for trains. Held, that the duty of showing a causal connection between the breach of duty and the injury, in that the evidence must tend to establish such a relation between them as, according to ordinary experience, warrants the conclusion that the injury would not have happened had not the negligence occurred, was complied with.
Error to circuit court, Lunenburg county.
Action by Simons' administrator against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Wm. H. Mann and G. S. Wing, for plaintiff In error.
B. B. Munford, for defendant in error.
KEITH, P. About 6 o'clock on the evening of December 27, 1895, W. H. Simons and Walter and John Rutledge undertook to cross the tracks of the Southern Railway Company at a point a short distance south of Meherrin Station. They were seated in an open vehicle, drawn by one horse. Simons was driving. They had traveled during the course of the day a distance of about 40 miles. They had no particular acquaintance with the road, but knew that they were approaching the point where it crossed the railway, and were driving cautiously and carefully, and keeping a sharp lookout It was not raining, but no stars were visible, and the night was very dark. Just as they got upon the track a passenger train coming from the south struck the vehicle, killed Simons, broke the leg of Walter Rutledge, and John Rutledge, who occupied a seat with Simons, the driver, escaped by leaping across the track in front of the engine.
This suit was brought to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of Simons by the defendant company.
The declaration contains three counts, only one of which will be noticed. The second count states as the cause of action that "while the said W. H. Simons, without any fault on his part, was traveling along said public road or highway, and over said railroad crossing, as he had the right to do, the Southern Railway Company carelessly and negligently failed and refused to cause the whistle on its locomotive engine to be at least twice sharply sounded, not less than three hundred yards before its locomotive reached the said highway crossing, and by reason of its said negligence, in so failing to blow, or cause to be blown, the whistle of its locomotive engine three hundred yards before reaching said crossing, as it had a right to do, the said defendant negligently, carelessly, and wrongfully caused or permitted its said engine, to which was attached a train of cars, to be violently, and with very great speed, driven against and upon the said Simons, inflicting fatal injuries, on account of which said injuries, so carelessly, negligently, and wrongfully inflicted by the said defendant on the said Simons, he, the said Simons, then and there died; to the damage of the said plaintiff $10,000."
Upon the trial the defendant demurred to the plaintiff's evidence, and the jury rendered a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Railway v. Whetzel
...entitled to recover." (Italics supplied.) 2, 3 The above opinion was published December 2, 1897. On June 23, 1898, in Simon's Adm'r So. Ry. Co., 96 Va. 152, 31 S.E. 7, 8, Judge Keith, in construing the same act, "It is true that proof of the failure on the part of the railway company to giv......
-
Railway Company v. Haley
...signals prescribed by the statute may have been given at a greater or less distance than that prescribed by the Code. Simons' Adm'r So. Ry. Co., 96 Va. 152, 31 S.E. 7; Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. Simmons, 127 Va. 419, 103 S.E. 609; Shiveley N. & W. Ry. Co., 125 Va. 384, 385, 388, 99 S.E. In order,......
-
Va.N Ry. Co v. Haley
...signals prescribed by the statute may have been given at a greater or less distance than that prescribed by the Code. Simons' Adm'r v. So. Ry. Co., 96 Va. 152, 31 S. E. 7; Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Simmons, 127 Va. 419, 103 S. E. 609; Shiveley v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 125 Va. 384, 385, 388, 99 S. ......
-
Southern Ry. Co v. Whetzel
...not entitled to recover." (Italics supplied.) The above opinion was published December 2, 1897. On June 23, 1898, in Simons' Adm'r v. So. Ry. Co., 96 Va. 152, 31 S. E. 7, 8, Judge Keith, in construing the same act, said: "It is true that proof of the failure on the part of the railway compa......