Tucker Et Ux. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co, 20181

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
Writing for the CourtMONROE, C. J.
Citation76 So. 212,141 La. 1096
PartiesTUCKER et ux. v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO
Decision Date11 June 1917
Docket Number20181

76 So. 212

141 La. 1096

TUCKER et ux.
v.
ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO

No. 20181

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 11, 1917


SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Where a person approaches a railroad track of which he has an unobstructed view without looking or listening for a train, and reaches a point in such proximity to the track at the moment of the passage of a locomotive drawing a heavy passenger train, that he is struck and killed by the steam chest projecting from the side of the boiler, he is guilty of negligence, continuing and concurring with whatever other negligence there may have been as a contributing cause of the accident, which precludes the recovery of damages by his relatives, who, under the statute, might otherwise have that right.

Whether in such case, where the original plaintiffs, the parents of the decedent, die after the appeal from a judgment in their favor has been lodged in this court, an administrator can prosecute the suit, is a question that is not raised, and upon which we express no opinion.

Hunter C. Leake, of New Orleans, and Bolivar E. Kemp, of Amite (Blewett Lee and R. V. Fletcher, both of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant.

Ponder & Ponder and R., C. & S. Reid, all of Amite, for appellees.

Statement of the Case.

OPINION

MONROE, C. J.

Defendant has brought up this appeal from a judgment condemning it to pay $ 10,000 as damages said to have been sustained by plaintiffs in the alleged negligent [141 La. 1097] killing of their son, a young man about 28 years of age, who lost his life under the following circumstances, to wit:

Defendant has a double track running north and south through Railroad avenue in the town of Ponchatoula. The tracks, which are between 8 and 10 feet apart, are crossed at a certain point by Pine street, which is, say, 100 feet wide; and 400 feet to the northward there is another street crossing. Upon the evening of March 27, 1912, near 8 o'clock, a through freight train was passing to the northward upon the eastward track, and as it was crossing Pine street the decedent was approaching Railroad avenue on Pine street from the westward, and passenger train No. 3, not scheduled to stop at Ponchatoula, was approaching the same point, going south on the westward track. Decedent walked along towards the freight train in a leisurely manner, smoking a cigar, and his attention was possibly attracted by a light upon the caboose at the rear end of the freight train, about which there is said to have been something peculiar, but, whether for that reason or because he was otherwise preoccupied, he failed to turn his eyes in the direction of the passenger train, and continued his walk until, coming to a point within reach of the steam chest which projected from 14 to 20 inches from the side of the boiler of the locomotive, he was struck thereby upon the head, his skull shattered, and he died immediately. The evidence satisfies us that the engineer had blown the station and crossing whistles, including one long and two short blasts for the crossing above Pine street; but it appears that his attention had also been attracted by the light on the caboose of the freight train, which he at first thought to be a semaphore signal, and he accordingly put on his brakes and checked the speed of his train. When about midway between the street above and Pine street, however, he discovered that the caboose light imported no [141 La. 1098] particular...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Allen v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Civ. A. No. 2873.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana
    • March 5, 1951
    ...his injury, he is barred from recovering any damages, regardless of the negligence of the defendant. In Tucker v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 141 La. 1096, 76 So. 212, 213, the Louisiana Supreme Court "And, as has been held by this court and others: "`No failure on the part of the railroad compa......
  • Gibbons v. N. O. Terminal Co., 8738
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • January 5, 1925
    ...& Rainold, 144 La. 100, 80 So. 214; Young vs. Louisiana Western R. Co., 153 La. 129, 95 So. 511; Tucker vs. Illinois Central R. Co., 141 La. 1096, 76 So. 212. The argument of plaintiff would require us to reverse the law and to decide that a negligent defendant is liable, however, negligent......
  • Hebert v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., No. 6720
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • December 20, 1978
    ...his senses of sight and hearing for possible oncoming trains, before traversing the crossing. Tucker v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 141 La. 1096, 76 So. 212; Rachal v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company, La.App., 61 So.2d 525; Matthews v. New Orleans Terminal Company, La.App., 45 So.2d ......
  • Matthews v. New Orleans Terminal Co., No. 19356
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • March 27, 1950
    ...evidence of negligence, without any reference to the railroad's failure to perform its duty.' See also Tucker v. Illinois Central R. Co., 141 La. 1096, 76 So. 212, and the cases there See also Gibbens v. New Orleans Terminal Co., 159 La. 347, 105 So. 367, and Martin v. Yazoo & M. R. Co., La......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Allen v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Civ. A. No. 2873.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana
    • March 5, 1951
    ...his injury, he is barred from recovering any damages, regardless of the negligence of the defendant. In Tucker v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 141 La. 1096, 76 So. 212, 213, the Louisiana Supreme Court "And, as has been held by this court and others: "`No failure on the part of the railroad compa......
  • Gibbons v. N. O. Terminal Co., 8738
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • January 5, 1925
    ...& Rainold, 144 La. 100, 80 So. 214; Young vs. Louisiana Western R. Co., 153 La. 129, 95 So. 511; Tucker vs. Illinois Central R. Co., 141 La. 1096, 76 So. 212. The argument of plaintiff would require us to reverse the law and to decide that a negligent defendant is liable, however, negligent......
  • Hebert v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., No. 6720
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • December 20, 1978
    ...his senses of sight and hearing for possible oncoming trains, before traversing the crossing. Tucker v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 141 La. 1096, 76 So. 212; Rachal v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company, La.App., 61 So.2d 525; Matthews v. New Orleans Terminal Company, La.App., 45 So.2d ......
  • Matthews v. New Orleans Terminal Co., No. 19356
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • March 27, 1950
    ...evidence of negligence, without any reference to the railroad's failure to perform its duty.' See also Tucker v. Illinois Central R. Co., 141 La. 1096, 76 So. 212, and the cases there See also Gibbens v. New Orleans Terminal Co., 159 La. 347, 105 So. 367, and Martin v. Yazoo & M. R. Co., La......
  • 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