Southern Railway Company v. Maggie Gray, No. 355

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcReynolds
Citation36 S.Ct. 558,60 L.Ed. 1030,241 U.S. 333
Docket NumberNo. 355
Decision Date22 May 1916
PartiesSOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. MAGGIE GRAY, Administratrix of Kenneth L. Gray, Deceased

241 U.S. 333
36 S.Ct. 558
60 L.Ed. 1030
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

MAGGIE GRAY, Administratrix of Kenneth L. Gray, Deceased.

No. 355.
Argued May 5, 1916.
Decided May 22, 1916.

Page 334

Messrs. L. E. Jeffries, H. O'B. Cooper, and L. L. Oliver for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Thomas H. Calvert and John A. Barringer for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court:

Kenneth L. Gray, an experienced brakeman, was of the crew in charge of plaintiff in error's north-bound interstate freight train which started from Spencer at 9:45 P. M. August 29, 1912. Seeking damages for his death, the administratrix brought this suit under the Federal employers' liability act (chap. 149, 35 Stat. at L. 65, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8657, chap. 143, 36 Stat. at L. 291) in the superior court, Randolph County, North Carolina. Among other things here amended complaint alleges:

'5. That on the 30th day of August, 1912, the intestate of the plaintiff was on a freight train running from Spencer in the state of North Carolina to Washington, District of Columbia, through the state of Virginia, and when the freight train upon which the intestate of the plaintiff was operating in going north arrived at Dry Fork, in the state of Virginia, the intestate of the plaintiff was sent forward about three quarters of a mile to signal a passenger train of defendant coming south; that the intestate of the plaintiff, when he had gotten about three quarters of a mile from Dry Fork, for some reason—loss of sleep or for some other

Page 335

cause unknown to the plaintiff—laid down by the side of the track of the defendant with his head on the end of the cross-ties and went to sleep; that shortly thereafter passenger train No. 37, coming south as aforesaid, carelessly and negligently ran over the intestate. . . .

* * * * *

'7. That the death of the intestate of the plaintiff was caused without fault on his part and by the wrongful and negligent act of the defendant, in that both the engineer and the fireman upon the passenger train which killed the intestate of the plaintiff could have easily seen the intestate of the plaintiff lying in a helpless condition as aforesaid upon the track of the defendant, the track of the defendant being straight a sufficient distance upon which the said passenger train was running toward the intestate of the plaintiff to have stopped the train or slackened its speed sufficiently to have prevented the killing of the intestate of the plaintiff, ran their train onto the intestate of the plaintiff without ringing the bell, without blowing its whistle, without slackening its speed, or without stopping the said train; in that the servants of the defendant did not keep proper lookout on the track in front of the engine, and have the engine and train of the defendant in proper control so that they could stop the engine of the defendant in time to have prevented the wrongful killing of the intestate of the plaintiff; in that the servants of the defendant did not see the intestate of the plaintiff, which it was their duty to do and which they could have done by ordinary care, until the train was so near the prostrate form of the intestate of the plaintiff that the servants of the defendant could not stop the train in time to save the life of the intestate of the plaintiff; in that the servants of the defendant wrongfully killed the intestate of the plaintiff upon the said occasion when they had the last clear chance to save his life, which they failed to do by the exercise of ordinary care.'

Page 336

The accident occurred at 5:14 A. M.,—twenty minutes before sunrise,—when it was somewhat foggy and ordinary objects on the ground could not readily be seen without artificial light. Approaching Dry Fork station the freight train stalled, and having been divided into two sections, these were hauled onto sidings there. After placing section 1, and as returned by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
149 practice notes
  • Francis v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 39573.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 8 avril 1946
    ...& P.R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 60 L. Ed. 874; Central Vermont R. Co. v. White, 238 U.S. 507, 59 L. Ed. 1433; Southern R. Co. v. Gray, 241 U.S. 333, 60 L. Ed. 1030; New Orleans & N.E.R. Co. v. Harris, 247 U.S. 367, 62 L Ed. 1167. (2) Obviously, if respondent is to recover upon the allege......
  • McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 34916.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 30 juillet 1937
    ...U.S. 501. 34 Sup. Ct. 635, 58 L. Ed. 1062, L.R.A. 1915C, 1 Ann. Cas. 1915B. 475; Southern Ry. Co. v. Gray, 241 U.S. 339, 36 Sup. Ct. 558. 60 L. Ed. 1030; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Coogan, 271 U.S. 474, 46 Sup. Ct. 564, 70 L. Ed. 1041; Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co. v. Allen,......
  • Harlan v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32085.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 juin 1934
    ...233 U.S. 501, 34 Sup. Ct. 635, 58 L. Ed. 1062, L.R.A. 1915C, 1 Ann. Cas. 1915B, 475; So. Ry. Co. v. Gray, 241 U.S. 339, 36 Sup. Ct. 558, 60 L. Ed. 1030; B. & O. Ry. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Coogan, 271 U.S. 474, 46 Sup. Ct. 564, 70 L. Ed. 1041; Railroad ......
  • Mooney v. Terminal Railroad Association, No. 38122.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 janvier 1944
    ...so far as all substantive questions of law are concerned. Cox v. M.-K.-T.R. Co., 335 Mo. 1226, 76 S.W. (2d) 411; Southern R. Co. v. Gray, 241 U.S. 333, 36 S. Ct. 558, 60 L. Ed. 1030; Toledo, St. L. & W.R. Co. v. Allen, 276 U.S. 165, 72 L. Ed. 513; C. & O.R. Co. v. Stapleton, 279 U.S. 587, 7......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
149 cases
  • Francis v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 39573.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 8 avril 1946
    ...& P.R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 60 L. Ed. 874; Central Vermont R. Co. v. White, 238 U.S. 507, 59 L. Ed. 1433; Southern R. Co. v. Gray, 241 U.S. 333, 60 L. Ed. 1030; New Orleans & N.E.R. Co. v. Harris, 247 U.S. 367, 62 L Ed. 1167. (2) Obviously, if respondent is to recover upon the allege......
  • McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 34916.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 30 juillet 1937
    ...U.S. 501. 34 Sup. Ct. 635, 58 L. Ed. 1062, L.R.A. 1915C, 1 Ann. Cas. 1915B. 475; Southern Ry. Co. v. Gray, 241 U.S. 339, 36 Sup. Ct. 558. 60 L. Ed. 1030; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Coogan, 271 U.S. 474, 46 Sup. Ct. 564, 70 L. Ed. 1041; Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co. v. Allen,......
  • Harlan v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32085.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 juin 1934
    ...233 U.S. 501, 34 Sup. Ct. 635, 58 L. Ed. 1062, L.R.A. 1915C, 1 Ann. Cas. 1915B, 475; So. Ry. Co. v. Gray, 241 U.S. 339, 36 Sup. Ct. 558, 60 L. Ed. 1030; B. & O. Ry. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Coogan, 271 U.S. 474, 46 Sup. Ct. 564, 70 L. Ed. 1041; Railroad ......
  • Mooney v. Terminal Railroad Association, No. 38122.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 janvier 1944
    ...so far as all substantive questions of law are concerned. Cox v. M.-K.-T.R. Co., 335 Mo. 1226, 76 S.W. (2d) 411; Southern R. Co. v. Gray, 241 U.S. 333, 36 S. Ct. 558, 60 L. Ed. 1030; Toledo, St. L. & W.R. Co. v. Allen, 276 U.S. 165, 72 L. Ed. 513; C. & O.R. Co. v. Stapleton, 279 U.S. 587, 7......
  • 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