Virginian Ry. Co. v. Hillsman

• Decision Date: 22 March 1934
• Citation: 162 Va. 359
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: VIRGINIAN RAILWAY COMPANY v. W. J. HILLSMAN.

Page 359

162 Va. 359

VIRGINIAN RAILWAY COMPANY v. W. J. HILLSMAN.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.

March 22, 1934.

Present, All the Justices.

1. AUTOMOBILES — Contributory Negligence — Conflicting Evidence — Contributory Negligence for Jury — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action against a railroad company for negligence, the evidence was undisputed that plaintiff approached a bridge constructed by the railroad very slowly and cautiously, and that he had not gone far enough to attain speed of any moment. There was abundant evidence to warrant the conclusion that plaintiff was operating his car not only without negligence but in the exercise of pronounced caution and care. There was no room for the Supreme Court of Appeals to say that he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

Held: That the contributory negligence of plaintiff was for the jury and was determined in his favor by a verdict for damages against the railroad.

2. AUTOMOBILES — Contributory Negligence — Conflicting Evidence — Contributory Negligence for Jury — Case at Bar. — In the instant case the automobile of plaintiff went into a ditch crossed by a roadway leading from the premises of the railroad station to a public road. The accident happened at night at a curve in the roadway.

Held: That whether the driver of the automobile was guilty of contributory negligence was for the jury.

3. RAILROADS — Negligence — Roadway Built by Railroad Leading from the Premises of Railroad to a Public Road — Verdict for Plaintiff Approved by Trial Court — Negligence of railroad in Constructing Roadway — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an action by the driver of an automobile against a railroad for the negligence of the railroad in the construction of a roadway leading from the premises of the railroad to a public road. The evidence was conflicting as to whether or not the railroad was guilty of negligence in the construction of the roadway.

Held: That the Supreme Court of Appeals was bound by the verdict of the jury in favor of plaintiff, there being sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, which was approved by the trial court.

4. APPEAL AND ERROR — Weight of Verdict Approved by Trial Court. — The Supreme Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that where the judge of a lower court hears the evidence, he is in a better position than the appellate court to pass upon the facts, and his decision must be accorded very great weight.

5. AUTOMOBILES — Damages — Injury to Plaintiff's Leg — Whether Injury Resulted from the Accident or Prior Disease. — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an action by the driver of an automobile against a railroad for injuries resulting from an accident due to the railroad's negligence in the construction of a road leading to its premises. The testimony of plaintiff was uncontradicted that his daughter was thrown against his left leg as a result of the accident, and that he then felt a little sprain in his knee but he did not, at the time, think it was serious. His daughter testified that when they reached home from the scene of the accident her father complained of pain in his leg. Plaintiff explained that his failure to report this injury to the railroad was because he thought it was not serious and would pass away, but it proved to be progressive. There was evidence that the plaintiff had arthritis at the time of the accident and that his injuries were attributable to the arthritis. There was testimony of other medical witnesses tending to prove that his condition was caused by the accident or aggravated by the accident.

Held: That the case, on all the issues presented, was a typical one for the jury.

6. QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT — Conflicting Evidence — Question for the Jury. — If there is conflict of testimony on a material point, or if reasonably fair-minded men may differ as to the conclusions of fact to be drawn from the evidence, or if the conclusion is dependent upon the weight to be given the testimony, in all such cases the verdict of the jury is final and conclusive, and cannot be disturbed, either by the trial court or by the Supreme Court of Appeals; or if improperly set aside by the trial court, it will be reinstated by the Supreme Court of Appeals.

7. DAMAGES — Aggravation of Disease — Defendant Answerable for Aggravation. — If a fall aggravates a latent case of tuberculosis in the knee and thereby starts up a process of diseases that develops a stiff knee, the defendant is answerable for such development if the fall is due to his fault.

8. EVIDENCE — Photographs — Change in Condition between the Time of an Accident and the Taking of a Photograph — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action against a railroad for damages, the trial court excluded from the evidence a photograph of the railroad's premises offered to show the situation around its station. The picture was taken in the summer following the accident. The trial court held that there was no satisfactory evidence that the conditions were the same at the time the picture was taken as they were when the accident occurred.

Held: That there was no error in the ruling of the trial court.

9. RAILROADS — Instructions — Evidence Not Warranting Instruction on Contributory Negligence — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action by the driver of an automobile against a railroad for negligence, an instruction as to the contributory negligence of plaintiff in failing to turn on the lights of the automobile because his vision through the windshield of the automobile was obstructed, or through and other cause for which defendant was not responsible, was rightly refused because there was no evidence upon which to base the contention that plaintiff failed to turn on the lights of his automobile or that his vision through the windshield was obscured.

10. RAILROADS — Instructions — Duty of Maintaining Roadway and Culvert on Station Premises — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an action against a railroad for negligence in maintaining a roadway and culvert on the station premises. The railroad asked for an instruction to the effect that its standard of care in maintaining a roadway was the same as that to be exercised by the county road authorities.

Held: That if the standard of care required by defendant was the same as that to be exercised by the county road authorities, which proposition the Supreme Court of Appeals did not concede, the evidence in the instant case did not justify the instruction. It was not shown that any situation similar to that in question existed in the county's road system.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Charlotte county, in a proceeding by motion for a judgment for damages. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant assigns error.

The opinion states the case.

Hall, Buford & Leftwich, for the plaintiff in error.

Watkins & Brock and J. K. Early, for the defendant in error.

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

The petitioner, Virginian Railway Company, is here complaining of a verdict and judgment in favor of W. J. Hillsman in an action for damages arising from personal injury.

The facts deemed necessary to be stated are that on the morning of February 22, 1931, just after midnight, Mr. Hillsman drove from his home in Farmville, Virginia, to the railroad company's station at Abilene, Virginia, for the purpose of meeting his daughter, who was a passenger on the company's train, scheduled to arrive at that station about that time. The night was dark and it was raining. Mr. Hillsman had been at the station only twice before the night in question; once in the preceding September, in the daytime, and again more than a year before the night of the accident. After arriving at the station and in advance of the arrival of the train he parked his car at the rear side of the station building and awaited the incoming of the train. He and his daughter shortly thereafter started on the return trip to Farmville. Leading out from the station and over the company's premises is a roadway which crosses a ditch variously estimated from four to ten feet deep and quite wide, the evidence not being clear as to the exact width. This ditch was designed by the company for drainage purposes and it remained open. It was located about forty feet to the north of the station and was crossed by a culvert or bridge which constituted a part of the roadway to be traveled by Mr. Hillsman in reaching the public road leading to Farmville. This way over the culvert was from ten to sixteen feet wide, varying with the testimony. Just before reaching the culvert it is approached by a sharp curve which includes the bridge or culvert. It is built up from the bottom of the ditch by timbers with a filling of some sort between them over large drainage pipes. The evidence is in conflict as to whether the sides of this bridge or culvert were perpendicular or slanting from the bottom to the top. As Mr. Hillsman was making the turn and going on the bridge, the lights of his car being directed by the course to his right, and being guided by his lights with his vision fixed that way, his car slipped on the left side and went down into the ditch. He testified that at first the descent was gradual and then it went down suddenly, turning over on its side and throwing his daughter against him.

There were no lights at or near the bridge or culvert crossing and there were no guard rails or similar means of preventing the traveler, failing to negotiate the bridge way with necessary particularity, from falling into the ditch.

The plaintiff alleged injuries to his left leg growing out of the accident which permanently disabled him and the gravamen of his complaint is that the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain reasonably safe premises and conditions for the protection of those lawfully upon its property and lawfully using the same; that the ditch and bridge, under the conditions obtaining, unguarded and unlighted,...