E. Tenn. & Ga. R.R. Co. v. St. John

• Decision Date: 30 September 1858
• Citation: 37 Tenn. 524
• Parties: EAST TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA RAILROAD CO. v. ARTHUR ST. JOHN.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

37 Tenn. 524

EAST TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA RAILROAD CO.

v.ARTHUR ST. JOHN.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September Term, 1858.

FROM MCMINN.

This was an action on the case in the circuit court of McMinn, against the East Tennessee and Georgia Railroad Company, for negligently killing a slave of the plaintiff. The accident occurred prior to the passage of the act of 1856, ch. 94. It seems that the plaintiff's slave a lad of eight years of age, was lying upon the track of the defendant, asleep, that he might have been seen one-quarter of a mile from the locomotive as it approached him, that the cars were running at a rapid speed, and the engineer supposing the object in the road was a laborer's coat, made no effort to slacken speed, and gave no signal; that he did not discover that it was a human being until it was too late to check the speed of the cars. The boy was overrun and killed at the instant of the discovery. At the August Term, 1858, before Judge Patterson, verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed in error.

J. B. Cooke and Jarnagin, for the plaintiff in error; Trewhitt, for the defendant in error.

Caruthers, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

St. John sued the railroad company for running over and killing his slave, about eight years old, and recovered damages to the amount of $962.33.

There is no controversy as to the fact, but the defence relied upon is, that the circumstances were not such as to make the company liable for damages. Objection is taken to the charge of the court in this, “that it was the duty of the engineer to use the utmost care and skill in the discharge of his duty by a vigilant and careful lookout for objects on the track, to blow the whistle and check speed when necessary to protect life and property; that if injury could have been avoided by the utmost care and skill by a careful and vigilant lookout for objects ahead, by giving proper signals, or by checking speed, the defendants would be liable for the value of the boy.” And further, “that if the injury was occasioned by running the cars at too great speed, at that particular point on the road, that would be such negligence as would render the defendants liable in damages; that if the negro boy was seen, or might have been discovered, if the engineer had kept a vigilant lookout for objects ahead on the track, in time to save his life, by checking speed, or blowing the whistle, this would be such negligence as to make the company liable.”

The court refused to charge as requested by defendant's counsel, to the effect, that in order to make the company liable, it must be made to appear that the negro and his master “exercised the utmost care and diligence in avoiding danger,” and if the negro was too young, then his master must do it, and the failure to do so, was “gross and inexcusable negligence,” and that in this case the plaintiff was virtually a trespasser, and not entitled to recover. But the court refused to charge except as above stated.

We are aware that there is much discrepancy in the railroad cases of the different states, and still the principles of law which should govern them, being derived from the same sources, it would seem, should be uniform, and perhaps would be more nearly so, but for the statutory changes which have been made by the several states.

The policy of our own decisions has been, so far as consistent with the safety of life and property, to encourage and protect this most grand and useful improvement of the age. But the consequences of carelessness and want of due skill in their management are so frightful and appalling that the most strict and rigid rules of accountability must be applied, where there is any dereliction of duty. Every reasonable precaution must be used to avoid accidents and injury to others, at the peril of strict and ample accountability. They enjoy almost a monopoly in the business of common carriers, wherever they exist, both as to persons and property. A necessity to patronize...