St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Transmier
| Decision Date | 10 February 1913 |
| Citation | 153 S.W. 817,106 Ark. 530 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. TRANSMIER |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
E. B Kinsworthy, W. V. Tompkins, W. G. Riddick and R. E. Wiley for appellant.
1. Under the circumstances of this case, where it is shown that the plaintiff, with knowledge of the presence and situation of the engine, and while the engine was stopped at some distance from the crossing, drove thereon, negligence can not be imputed to the engineer if, while the plaintiff was driving over the crossing, he started his engine to moving away from the crossing and in doing so made no greater noises and allowed no greater escape of steam from the engine than was necessary and usual in its operation. 99 Ark. 226, 232; 77 Ark. 174; 89 Ark. 270; 28 Ind.App. 289, 62 N.E. 647; 95 Ill.App. 220; 44 A. 994; 59 S.W. 607; 69 Ark. 130; 60 Ark 409; 62 N.W. 7; 98 N.E. 247, 253; 83 Ind. 516, 522-3; 74 Wis. 504; 23 L. R. A. 504, 510.
It is only where the escaping steam which frightened the animal is shown to have been unnecessary or outside the ordinary working of steam incident to the operation of the engine, that the railway company is held to be negligent. Supra; 63 A. 139; 126 S.W. 8; 8 So. 798; 33 N.E. 774; 66 S.W. 1013; 85 Wis. 570; 73 Md. 516.
2. The court should have granted appellant's motion for change of venue. Repeals by implication are not favored. It is not enough that a later act covers part of the subject matter of a prior act, but it must be clearly apparent that the whole subject matter of a prior law is covered by the later enactment, before the later act will operate as a repeal. It is clear that section 7998, Kirby's Digest, is not repealed by either of the Acts of 1909 (Acts 1909, pp. 757 and 571; 73 Ark. 536; 76 Ark. 32; 76 Ark. 443; 47 Ark. 481; 80 Ark. 413.
Robertson & DeMers, for appellee.
1. Appellant's right to operate its engine and to make the necessary noises and to blow off the necessary steam for that purpose, does not extend to circumstances where to do so would, within its knowledge, cause or increase the fright of plaintiff's mule and cause plaintiff injury. 69 Ark. 130; 60 Ark. 409.
It is the duty of a railroad company to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to observe travelers about to cross the railroad upon the highway, and to be reasonable, the care exercised must be "proportioned to the danger and multiplied chances of injury." This is a question for the jury. 3 Elliott on Railroads, 1156 and authorities cited.
Certainly the conduct of the engineer in blowing off steam, and in the creation of noises, to the extent shown in the evidence, could not, under the circumstances, be justified as the conduct of a careful and prudent man having due regard to plaintiff's safety in the operation or management of the engine. 56 Ark. 387; 60 Ark. 415; 94 Ark. 251 and cases cited; 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1224; 39 Neb. 28, 57 N.W. 769; 39 Neb. 65; 28 L. R. A. 507; 57 N.W. 545; 225 Pa. 110; 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1202-1205.
2. The motion for change of venue was properly overruled. The provision of the latter part of section 7998, Kirby's Digest, and the provisions of the Act of May 13, 1909, are in direct conflict. The later act will prevail over the former. Act May 13, 1909, § 2; 36 Cyc. 1097.
This is an action instituted against defendant railway company to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while crossing the railroad of defendant at a public street crossing in the city of Argenta, negligence of servants of the company being charged in unnecessarily blowing steam from the engine so as to frighten plaintiff's horse.
Plaintiff is a man well advanced in years, and was employed to work on a farm a few miles out from Argenta. His employer, one Engelberger, in addition to farming, operated a saloon and restaurant in Argenta, and one of plaintiff's duties was to make regular trips to and from Argenta to haul slops and garbage from the restaurant to the farm. He made several trips each week, and was accustomed to cross the railroad at the place where his injury occurred. He drove a mule, which his employer had owned for several years and which he had been driving regularly. The evidence shows that the mule had always been regarded as a very gentle animal, free from viciousness, and that all the members of the Engelberger family were accustomed to driving it. On the occasion in question, as plaintiff approached the street crossing, he observed a switch engine backing a train of cars slowly over the crossing, and he stopped his mule in about forty or fifty feet of the crossing in order to wait for the train to pass over. The engine backed the cars over the crossing and stopped in a very short distance of the crossing. The evidence warranted a finding that it stopped in something less than fifteen feet of the crossing. There was a flagman there to guard the crossing, and without objection or warning from him the plaintiff started driving across, when steam was suddenly blown from the engine and the mule took fright and overturned the cart, throwing plaintiff out. He sustained very serious injuries, and the jury awarded damages in the sum of $ 5,000.
The law of the case is well settled, and the same was declared to the jury in instructions free from any objection. In fact, it is not insisted here that any error was committed by the court in instructing the jury.
The court, in decisions in like cases, has laid down the law applicable to the facts in cases of this sort, where injuries have been caused to travelers at crossings from negligence of servants of a railroad in frightening horses by unnecessarily allowing steam to escape or by unnecessary noises. Railroad Co. v. Lewis, 60 Ark. 409; Inabnett v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 69 Ark. 130, 61 S.W. 570; C. O. & G. Rd. Co. v. Coker, 77 Ark. 174; 89 Ark. 270; Geren v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 99 Ark. 226.
The doctrine of those cases is that "the duty of railroads is to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to observe travelers about to cross at a highway crossing," and it should refrain from doing any heedless or unnecessary act calculated to frighten teams of travelers rightfully approaching crossings.
It is insisted here that the evidence is not sufficient to warrant the finding that steam in unusual quantities was allowed to escape or that steam was unnecessarily blown out but that if any steam at all escaped from the engine it was only a necessary incident to the starting of the engine. We think the evidence was sufficient to warrant the finding of negligence. The engine had been brought to a stop within fifteen feet of the crossing, and plaintiff started across in full view of the men on the engine. There was no steam escaping at the time he started across, but he states that just as he got in front of the engine steam was blown out to the extent that it scalded his hand as it rested on the edge of the seat of the wagon or...
To continue reading
Request your trial