Southern Ry. Co v. Hall's Adm'r

Decision Date03 December 1903
Citation45 S.E. 867,102 Va. 135
CourtVirginia Supreme Court
PartiesSOUTHERN RY. CO. v. HALL'S ADM'R.

RAILROADS—ACCIDENT TO PERSON ON TRACK —NEGLIGENCE—EVIDENCE.

1. No negligence of the persons in charge of a train is shown by evidence that when deceased was last seen alive he was on the railroad track, 25 or 30 yards from where he was found dead, with a train following him at a distance of 150 yards, on a straight track, illuminated by the headlight, going at such speed that it could be stopped within 40 or 50 yards; the engineer testifying that he never saw deceased.

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of Lynchburg.

Action by William Hall's administrator against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Horsley & Blackford, for appellants.

Don P. Halsey and A. W. Nowlin, for appellee.

HARRISON, J. On.the night of the 25th of February, 1901, between the hours of 8 and 9 o'clock, William Hall, in company with three other men, went from Lynchburg to a point on the Southern Railway track known as the "Plow Works Crossing." Here they parted; Hall going south along the railway track toward his home, which was a short distance outside the corporate limits of the city of Lynchburg, and about 50 yards east of the railway track. This appears to have been the shortest and most direct route from Lynchburg to his home, and was daily used by him in passing between the two points. This route along and over the railway track was constantly used by numbers of people living in the suburbs of Lynchburg, and in the same vicinity with Hall, who passed there at all hours of the day and night, and had done so for many years. When Hall parted with his three companions at the Plow Works crossing, they went down and across the canal, which is parallel with the Southern Railway track at that point, and got upon the track of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, which runs along the opposite bank of the canal, # and started in the same general direction with Hall, but a short distance behind him. These three men—two McCormicks and one Bryant—are the only persons who testify with respect to Hall's movements after they parted. They appear to have been in sight and hearing, the roads not being more than 60 feet apart, with the Southern elevated considerably above the Chesapeake & Ohio. The testimony shows that within a few minutes from the time of their parting a freight train, consisting of 14 or more cars, drawn by one engine, and pushed by another, came along on the Southern Railway, going in the same direction that Hall was going. It appears that, going south from Lynchburg, the direction taken by Hall, the track was straight for a distance of several hundred yards, and a heavy up grade; that it was a bright night, and, in addition to the natural light, the track was illuminated for the whole distance from the train to and beyond Hall by the headlight of the engine, so that any object on the track within that distance could be readily seen. The speed of the train is estimated at from 6 to 20 miles an hour. This, however, is not material, as it appears that, at the maximum rate mentioned, the train could have been easily stopped within 40 or 50 yards.

The next morning Hall's dead body was found lying by the side of the track, a short distance from where he was last seen, so bruised about the back of the head and shoulders as to indicate that he had been killed by a passing train. Thereupon this suit was instituted by Hall's administrator, alleging that his intestate had come to his death in consequence of the negligence of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Southern Railway v. Whetzel
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 12 Enero 1933
    ...must be such as to satisfy reasonable and well-balanced minds that it resulted from the negligence of the defendant." Southern R. Co. Hall, 102 Va. 135, 45 S.E. 867, 868. Frequently circumstances alone suffice, as is illustrated by Virginian Ry. Co. Bacon, 156 Va. 337, 157 S.E. 789, 791. Th......
  • Southern Ry. Co v. Whetzel
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 12 Enero 1933
    ...be such as to satisfy reasonable and well-balanced minds that it resulted from the negligence of $ the defendant." Southern R. Co. v. Hall, 102 Va. 135, 45 S. E. 867, 868. Frequently circumstances alone suffice, as is illustrated by Virginian Ry. Co. v. Bacon, 156 Va. 337, 157 S. E. 789, 79......
  • Davis, D'R Gen. v. Ellis's Admx
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 26 Febrero 1925
    ...must be proved by competent evidence. The burden is on the plaintiff to show how and why the accident occurred." So. Ry. Co. Hall's Adm'r, 102 Va. 135, 45 S.E. 867. The deceased was employed as a brakeman on one of the yard engines working in Boulton yard, and was therefore familiar with th......
  • Hawkins v. Beecham
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 1937
    ...by the mere fact that a body was found by a railroad track which apparently had suffered death from a passing train. Southern Ry. Co. Hall's Adm'r, 102 Va. 135, 45 S.E. 867; Southern Ry. Co. Adams, 129 Va. 233, 245, 105 S.E. 566. 9 Negligence and an accident, however, do not make a case. As......
  • 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