Stokes v. Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 13 October 1890
• Citation: 11 S.E. 991,107 N.C. 178
• Parties: STOKES v. RAILROAD CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

11 S.E. 991

107 N.C. 178

STOKES v. RAILROAD CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 13, 1890

Appeal from superior court, Chowan county; WHITAKER, Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages sustained by her, occasioned by the defendant's failure "to keep the bridges and other approaches to the said train [that of the defendant] at that point over which the plaintiff was compelled to pass in a safe and suitable condition, but allowed them to be, on the day named, dangerous to persons approaching said trains." On the trial the defendant requested the court to instruct the jury, among other things as follows: "(1) That if the jury find that the said bridge was constructed as a crossing for the witness Jones over a drain not over eight (8) or ten (10) inches deep, and was in good condition, and at least fifteen feet wide, the only defect being that one plank was slightly shorter at one end than the other planks of the bridge, that would not constitute negligence on the part of the defendant. (2) That if the jury find, as a fact, that the bridge or crossing over the end of which the plaintiff fell was fifteen feet wide at the narrowest point, over a drain not over eight (8) inches deep at the deepest part, and sloping off at both edges, and not over two (2) feet wide, perfectly sound in all respects the only defect being a plank slightly shorter at one end than the other planks of the bridge, it would constitute a sufficient crossing for foot-passengers boarding the train and would not of itself be negligence on the part of the defendant." There was evidence tending to prove the facts suggested by the instructions asked for. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to this court.

In an action against a railroad company for personal injuries occasioned by defendant's failure to keep the approaches to its trains in a safe condition, there was evidence tending to prove that near and parallel to defendant's railroad at the point where its train stopped for passengers, was a ditch 4 to 6 feet wide, and about 8 inches deep; that a solid bridge about 15 feet wide crossed the ditch; that one plank was about 6 or 8 inches shorter than the others; that the shortness might easily be seen; and that plaintiff fell through the bridge at the end of the short plank. Held, that the court should have charged that if the jury found the facts as to the bridge and...