Usury v. Watkins
| Decision Date | 20 April 1910 |
| Citation | 152 N.C. 760,67 S.E. 926 |
| Parties | USURY v. WATKINS et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
1. Carriers (§ 298*)—Injury to Passenger —Sudden Jolts.
If the engineer of a train was not negligent in starting it with a jolt so that a passenger was thrown down and injured, the railroad could not be held liable for the injury resulting from such act; the train being properly equipped with air brakes, and the engineer being competent.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 1205; Dec. Dig. § 298.*]
2. Carriers (§ 280*)—Passenger on Freight Train—Assumption of Risk.
In taking passage on a freight train, a passenger assumes the usual risks incident to traveling on such trains when managed by prudent and competent men in a careful manner.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 1098; Dec. Dig. § 280.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Granville County; Biggs, Judge.
Action by S. H. Usury against M. L. Wat-kins and the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff as against the railway company, which appeals. Reversed.
Action for personal injury against defendant Watkins as the engineer and the Southern Railway as the common carrier operating a freight train with passenger coach attached between Oxford and Keysville, tried at November term, 1909, of the superior court of Granville county. Plaintiff was a passenger, and, while standing up near car door when train had stopped at a water tank, the train was started, and, as plaintiff testifies, he was thrown down and injured. At conclusion of all the evidence plaintiff stated he did not desire or ask that an issue be submitted as to engineer Watkins. There was a verdict and judgment against the defendant railway company from which it appealed.
T. T. Hicks and A. A. Hicks, for appellant.
B. S. Royster, for appellee.
The assignments of error present two questions:
(1) Is there any sufficient evidence of negligence?
(2) In view of the action of plaintiff in respect to the defendant Watkins, can plaintiff recover of his principal the railway company?
We are unanimous in the opinion that there is no sufficient evidence of negligence, and that his honor should have so held. The train was a long freight with passenger coach attached at end. It was properly equipped with air brakes, and managed by a competent engineer. In starting the train and taking up the slack, it is conceded that much jolting and jarring is inevitable. We do not think the evidence is sufficient to show that the jolting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kearney v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.
... ... men in a careful manner ( Marable v. Railroad, 142 ... N.C. 563, 55 S.E. 355; Usury v. Watkins, 152 N.C ... 760, 67 S.E. 926), but he was entitled to the highest degree ... of care of which such trains are susceptible, and had ... ...
-
Kearney v. Seabd. Air Line Ry
...trains, when managed by prudent and careful men in a careful manner (Marable v. Railroad, 142 N. C. 563, 55 S. E. 355; Usury v. Watkins, 152 N. C. 760, 67 S. E. 926), but he was entitled to the highest degree of care of which such trains are susceptible, and had the right to assume that the......
- North Carolina Bd. of Pharmacy v. Lane
-
Hunt v. Chi., B. & Q. R. Co.
...28 S. D. 379, 133 N. W. 696;St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Gosnell, 23 Okl. 588, 101 Pac. 1126, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 892;Usury v. Watkins, 152 N. C. 760, 67 S. E. 926;Weinschenk v. N. Y., N. H. & H. Ry., 190 Mass. 250, 76 N. E. 662;Frohriep v. Lake Shore Ry., 131 Mich. 459, 91 N. W. 748. The a......