Vincent v. Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad And Steamship Company

• Decision Date: 18 May 1896
• Docket Number: 12,121
• Citation: 20 So. 207,48 La.Ann. 933
• Parties: JOSEPH VINCENT, TUTOR, v. MORGAN'S LOUISIANA & TEXAS RAILROAD AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

20 So. 207

48 La.Ann. 933

JOSEPH VINCENT, TUTOR, v. MORGAN'S LOUISIANA & TEXAS RAILROAD AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY

No. 12,121

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 18, 1896

Argued April 23, 1896

APPEAL from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia. Voorhies, J.

C. H Mouton and L. O. Hacker, for Plaintiff, Appellee.

D Caffery & Son, for Defendant, Appellant.

OPINION

NICHOLLS C.J.

On the 16th of March, 1893, the wife of Joseph Vincent, the plaintiff, was returning in a buggy to her home near Olivier Station, in the parish of Iberia. Accompanying her was her sister and her sister's child. The public road near Olivier (which is a flag station of defendant's road) runs nearly parallel to the company's tracks, but when almost opposite to the station it makes an abrupt turn at or near Veazey's store, and crosses the main track to the other side. The day was cloudy and a strong wind was blowing. Mrs. Vincent was driving. Reaching the turning point in the road she drove directly to the point of intersection of the road with the track, without stopping, and as the horse was crossing the track it was struck by the locomotive attached to a train of cars operated by employees of the defendant company. The horse was killed the buggy was entirely demolished and Mrs. Vincent (mortally wounded) died a few moments after the accident. The sister and her child, after lingering a short time, also died. The train with which the buggy collided was not the regular passenger, but a special train on inspection duty. It was running just before it passed the intersection of the public road with the track at Olivier Station at about forty miles an hour. The whistle of the locomotive was blown at or near the whistling post, four times, according to custom, and again near the crossing. The bell seems to have been also rung. The appliances of the train were in good condition and the employees of the company at their respective posts. We have examined the record carefully, and the examination so made forces us to the conviction that the verdict of the jury and the judgment based upon it are contrary to the law and the evidence. We have found no fact, either of omission or commission on the part of the company's employees which could give rise to an action of damages against the defendant. We find, on the contrary, that the unfortunate accident, by which the plaintiff's wife came to her death, is directly traceable to heedlessness and want of care and proper caution on the part of the deceased.

Plaintiff's pleadings refer to the train as being a special one, the speed at which it was running as being dangerous particularly in view of the darkness of the day; to the speed not having been checked as the cars approached the crossing and to obstructions to the view along the line of road from Veazey's store to the crossing. The evidence shows that along the bar fences, between which the public road ran, were a few scattering trees of small size and also some weeds between eighteen inches and two feet high, but that they left, none the less, in clear view, any train approaching upon plaintiff's track, particularly to those sitting in an elevated buggy, and that the track itself was raised above the general level of the surrounding country. The approach to the main track from Veazey's store being almost perpendicular, all that a person sitting in a buggy would have had to have done in order to ascertain the exact situation was to have looked to the right across the side of the buggy, if the curtain on that side were raised, or if it were down, to have leant forward a little and looked across. It so happened that the curtain on the right side (the very one which should have been up) had been lowered in consequence of a threatening rain and the persons inside of the buggy, in spite of that fact, drove forward without attempting in any way to guard against possible danger. Mrs. Vincent, the evidence shows, lived near the railroad, had often crossed this identical track, and was familiar with the surroundings. The distance between the store and the crossing was considerable, and furnished ample time and opportunity for examination and discovery, but no precautions, it seems, were taken. In order to reach the track it was necessary to move up an incline leading to the track, but no halt was made when almost the slightest touch upon the reins could...