Southern Ry. Co v. Hansbrough's Adm'x
| Decision Date | 14 June 1906 |
| Citation | 105 Va. 527,54 S.E. 17 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. HANSBROUGH'S ADM'X. |
1. Railroads—Injury to Person on Track —Pleading—Declarations—Sufficiency.
A declaration, in an action against a railway company for injuries to a traveler in a collision with an engine operated on a street, which alleges that the engine was running at a high rate of speed, carelessly, negligently, and unskillfully, without pointing out in what manner it was so run, and without alleging a violation of any ordinance, or averring any obstruction to the view of persons crossing the track, which made it necessary for the company not to run its engines at a high rate of speed, states no cause of action, because it fails to point out in what manner the company was negligent and to show what duty it owed to the traveler which it neglected to perform.
2. Same.
A declaration, in an action against a railway company for injuries to a traveler in a collision with an engine operated on a street, which alleges that it was the duty of the company to run its engine at 5 miles an hour, and that it ran the same at 40 miles an hour, without alleging the violation of any ordinance or statute, and which alleges that the bell was not rung without alleging any ordinance or statute requiring the ringing of the bell, and without charging the company with any failure to exercise caution to prevent injury after seeing the traveler, states no cause of action, because it fails to state facts showing any duty on the part of the company.
3. Same.
A declaration, in an action against a railroad company for injuries to a traveler in a col-lision with an engine operated on a street, which sets out the ordinance making it unlawful for trains to be run at a greater speed than 5 miles per hour, and requiring every locomotive to be furnished with a bell, which shall be rung during the time the locomotive is in motion, and which alleges a violation of the ordinance as the proximate cause of the injury, sets out facts sufficient to inform the company of the existence of the duty which it is claimed was neglected, and which negligence caused the injury complained of.
Error to Circuit Court of City of Alexandria.
Action by Hansbrough's administratrix against the Southern Railway Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.
C. C. Carlin, for plaintiff in error.
Norton & Boothe, for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court of the city of Alexandria for damages for the death of defendant in error's intestate, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the plaintiff in error.
There was a demurrer to the declaration as a whole, and to each count thereof, which was overruled; and this ruling of the trial court is assigned as error.
The first count of the declaration, after setting out that the defendant was the owner and operator of a certain line of railroad by means of locomotive steam engines, cars, and trains within the municipal corporation of the city of Alexandria, and in connection with its railroad and work on the day named was operating its railroad in and upon a certain public street and highway in said city known as "Henry street, " and extending along and upon said public street and highway from and beyond the northern terminus of said city and through the said city along Henry street, southwardly, intersecting and crossing divers public streets and highways in said city, amongst them Madison street, then and there a public highway for persons with horses, carriages, and vehicles to travel and pass along, upon, and over the same, and while the defendant was using the said street for the operation of its railroad trains the plaintiff's intestate was, on the day named, driving a horse attached to a wagon filled with boxes containing glass, in which wagon the plaintiff's intestate was then and there seated, along and upon Madison street towards Henry street from the west, and at and near to the intersection of the said Henry and Madison streets, at a slow, proper, and lawful rate of speed, and was about to cross Henry street to his destination, but before he could cross said Henry street a certain locomotive engine, without any train attached thereto, moving towards and upon said Madison street, at its intersection with Henry street, at a high and rapid rate of speed (giving the number of the engine and the name of the engineer in charge thereof) was run and propelled by the defendant, its agent, and employe aforesaid carelessly, negligently, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Ry. Co v. Hansbrough's Adm'x
...the Southern Railway Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded for new trial. See 54 S. E. 17. Norton & Boothe, for plaintiff In error. C. C. Carlin, H. O'B. Cooper, Francis L. Smith, and Robert B. Tunstall, for defendant in error. CARDWE......
-
Norfolk & W. Ry. Co v. Stegall's Adm'x
...merely by way of recital." Hortenstein v. Va.-Car. Ry. Co., supra; Southern Ry. Co. v. Hansbrough's Adm'x (decided at the present term.) 54 S. E. 17. For these reasons the trial court ought to have sustained the demurrer to the declaration and to each count thereof. There are several other ......
-
Lynchburg Traction & Light Co v. Guill
...terms, and general averments of negligence of the defendant, which fall short of this, are not sufficient." In Southern Ry. Co. v. Hansbrough, 105 Va. 527, 54 S. E. 17, the court held it to be insufficient upon demurrer, because, while it alleged that the defendant's employes carelessly, ne......
-
Hot Springs Lumber & Mfg. Co v. Revercomb
...ordinary care was used in floating the logs upon the stream to prevent injury to the adjacent landowners. In Southern Railway Co. v. Hansbrough's Adm'x, 105 Va. —, 54 S. E. 17, it is held that a count In a declaration was bad which alleged "that the engine was run at a high rate of speed ca......