Sutton v. Southern Ry. Co

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtJONES, J
Citation64 S.E. 401,82 S. C. 345
PartiesSUTTON. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al.
Decision Date09 April 1909

64 S.E. 401
(82 S. C. 345)

SUTTON.
v.
SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 9, 1909.


1. Negligence (§ 119*) —Pleading — Evidence.

Under a complaint alleging negligence generally, plaintiff may introduce any competent evidence, in the absence of a motion to have the allegations made definite and certain, but, where the complaint alleges specific acts of negligence, plaintiff is restricted to proof of such acts.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. §§ 206, 208; Dec. Dig. § 119.*]

2. Carriers (§ 306*)—Injuries to Passenger —Collision—Liability of Station Agent.

A railroad station agent, under no duty to notify a train that another train is preceding it, is not liable for injuries to a passenger in a rear-end collision resulting from failure to give such notice.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. Dig. § 306.*]

3. Carriers (§ 280*)—Carriage of Passenger—Care Required.

A carrier must exercise the highest degree of care to transport its passengers safely.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers. Cent. Dig. § 1087; Dec. Dig. § 280.*]

4. Carriers (§ 316*)—Injuries to Passenger—Negligence — Evidence — Presumptions.

A presumption of negligence arises against a carrier on proof that a passenger on its train was injured by some agency of the carrier, or some act or omission of its servants or some defect in the instrumentalities of transportation.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 1283-1294; Dec. Dig. § 316.*]

5. Carriers (§ 315*)—Injuries to Passenger —Negligence—Pleading—Proof.

Where, in an action for injuries to a passenger in a rear-end collision, plaintiff made out a prima facie case on proof of facts alleged in the complaint, he could not be defeated merely because he failed to prove other allegations not essential to his cause of action.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. Dig. § 315.*]

6. Negligence (§ 117*)—Contributory Negligence—Necessity of Pleading.

Contributory negligence is not involved in a case when not pleaded.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. § 195; Dec. Dig. § 117.*]

7. Carriers (§ 321*)—Injuries to Passenger — Collisions — Negligence — Proximate Cause—Instructions.

In an action for injuries to a passenger, an instruction that if a passenger is injured on a train, and the railroad does not exercise the highest degree of care, it is liable for the injury, etc., was not erroneous as eliminating the question of proximate cause, and making defendant an insurer.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. Dig. § 321.*]

8. Evidence (§ 127*)—Res Gestae.

In an action against a railroad for injuries to a passenger in a collision, a declaration of plaintiff as to his condition just after his restoration to consciousness, a minute or two after the collision, was properly admitted as part of the res gestae.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 377-382; Dec. Dig. § 127.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of York County; John S. Wilson, Judge.

Action by J. M. Sutton against the Southern Railway Company and F. G. Whitlock. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed as to the railway company, and reversed as to defendant Whitlock.

J. E. McDonald, for appellants.

J. C. Wilburn and G. W. S. Hart, for respondent.

[64 S.E. 402]

JONES, J. The plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendants for $1,350 as damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of a rear-end collision between two of defendant's trains at Pineville, N. C, on November 28, 1905, while plaintiff was a passenger on one of said trains. The defendants made a motion to direct a verdict and a motion for new trial on the ground that there was no testimony to sustain the allegations of negligence set forth in the complaint, which motions were refused, and these rulings are the main subject of exception. The complaint alleged that defendant Southern Railway Company was a common carrier of passengers operating a railroad from Columbia, S. C, to Charlotte, N. C.; that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • May Department Stores Co. v. Bell, No. 9453.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 12, 1932
    ...Waldsmith, 31 Ohio App. 118, 166 N. E. 588; Boyd v. Portland Electric Co., 40 Or. 126, 66 P. 576, 57 L. R. A. 619; Sutton v. Southern Ry., 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401; Nashville Int. Ry. et al. v. Gregory, 137 Tenn. 422, 193 S. W. 1053; Dearden v. S. P., L. A. & S. L. R. Co., 33 Utah, 147, 9......
  • Miller v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12063.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1926
    ...that the general negligence was intended to cover other acts of negligence than those alleged. In the case of Sutton v. Railroad Co., 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401, which was an action brought by a passenger for injuries sustained as such, there was a general allegation of negligence on the pa......
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...11 S. E. 691; Jenkins v. McCarthy, 45 S. C. 278, 22 S. E. 883; Brown v. Railroad Co., 57 S. C. 435, 35 S. E. 731; Sutton v. Railroad Co., 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401; King v. Railroad Co., 6 Idaho, 306, 55 P. 665, 59 L. R. A. 209; Spires v. Railroad Co., 47 S. C. 28, 24 S. E. 992, and other ......
  • Brown v. Finger, No. 17892
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 2, 1962
    ...of this kind, it [240 S.C. 114] was not pleaded, and not having been pleaded is not involved in the case. Sutton v. Southern Railway, 82 S.C. 345, 64 S.E. 401; Lawrence v. Southern Railway, 169 S.C. 1, 167 S.E. As pointed out in Lawrence v. Southern Railway: 'As has been so often pointed ou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • May Department Stores Co. v. Bell, No. 9453.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 12, 1932
    ...Waldsmith, 31 Ohio App. 118, 166 N. E. 588; Boyd v. Portland Electric Co., 40 Or. 126, 66 P. 576, 57 L. R. A. 619; Sutton v. Southern Ry., 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401; Nashville Int. Ry. et al. v. Gregory, 137 Tenn. 422, 193 S. W. 1053; Dearden v. S. P., L. A. & S. L. R. Co., 33 Utah, 147, 9......
  • Miller v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12063.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1926
    ...that the general negligence was intended to cover other acts of negligence than those alleged. In the case of Sutton v. Railroad Co., 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401, which was an action brought by a passenger for injuries sustained as such, there was a general allegation of negligence on the pa......
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...11 S. E. 691; Jenkins v. McCarthy, 45 S. C. 278, 22 S. E. 883; Brown v. Railroad Co., 57 S. C. 435, 35 S. E. 731; Sutton v. Railroad Co., 82 S. C. 345, 64 S. E. 401; King v. Railroad Co., 6 Idaho, 306, 55 P. 665, 59 L. R. A. 209; Spires v. Railroad Co., 47 S. C. 28, 24 S. E. 992, and other ......
  • Brown v. Finger, No. 17892
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 2, 1962
    ...of this kind, it [240 S.C. 114] was not pleaded, and not having been pleaded is not involved in the case. Sutton v. Southern Railway, 82 S.C. 345, 64 S.E. 401; Lawrence v. Southern Railway, 169 S.C. 1, 167 S.E. As pointed out in Lawrence v. Southern Railway: 'As has been so often pointed ou......
  • 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