Williamson v. Southern Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 15 June 1905
• Citation: Williamson v. Southern Ry. Co, 70 L.R.A. 1007, 104 Va. 146, 51 S.E. 195 (1905)
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIAMSON. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

104 Va. 146

51 S.E. 195

WILLIAMSON.

v.SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 15, 1905.

1. Railroads—Action fob Injuries — Evidence.

In an action against a railroad for injuries, evidence examined, and held insufficient to show that plaintiff at the time of his injury was using the defendant's tracks as a walkway as an invited guest of the defendant or otherwise than as a bare licensee.

2. Same—Negligence.

Where a railroad track has been used as a walkway by the public for many years, and such use is known to the railroad company and its employés, the sole duty of the company to persons whom it may reasonably expect to be on the track is discharged by the use of reasonable care to discover and avoid injuring them.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 41, Cent. Dig. Railroads, §§ 1228, 1229, 1235, 1236.]

3. Same.

A railroad is under no obligation to make preparation in advance for the protection of mere licensees in using its tracks for a walkway, and hence its failure to furnish a light on its engine on a dark night was not negligence as to a licensee using its tracks for a walkway.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 41, Cent. Dig. Railroads, §§ 1236, 1261.]

Error to Law and Equity Court of City of Richmond.

Action by James E. Williamson against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment in favor of defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Meredith & Cocke, for plaintiff in error.

Munford, Hunton, Williams & Andersen, for defendant in error.

HARRISON, J. This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant company. The damages were assessed by the jury at?1, 500, subject to a demurrer to the evidence, which was sustained, and judgment given for the defendant.

The accident which is the subject of inquiry occurred upon that portion of the main line of the defendant which runs along the south bank of James river, at or about its entry of the company's yards in the city of Manchester. A little northwest of the city of Manchester, in James river, is an island called "Belle Isle, " upon which is located an iron manufactory. This island is connected with the south bank, or Manchester side, of the river by a railroad bridge built by the defendant company for its use in hauling freight, upon each side of which is provided a walkway for the use of persons going to and from the ironworks. These ironworks and the railroad bridge connecting them with the main line of the Southern Railway on the Manchester side of the river have been in operation for many years. When the employés from Belle Isle cross the bridge and reach the south bank of the river, they have two routes open to them— one leading away from the railroad and into the city of Manchester, and the other along the right of way of the defendant company into the city. These employés had for many years used both routes, the choice depending upon the point of destination in the city. Those who, for their convenience, adopted the latter route, had always enjoyed its use by the passive acquiescence of the defendant.

The plaintiff had been for "three or four months" an employé of the ironworks on Belle Isle, and on the 27th day of November, 1903, he left the works 15 minutes before 6 o'clock to go to his home. When he reached the south bank of the river he pursued, as was his regular habit, the route along the right of way of the defendant company. He walked on the pathway at the side of the track a distance of about 1, 400 feet but, finding the path rough, helooked and listened to ascertain if a train was approaching, and, being satisfied that no train was coming, he stepped upon the railroad track and walked thereon for a distance of 25 yards, when he looked back and found a work train of the defendant company so close upon him that he could not jump out of the way in time to avoid the injuries complained of. The plaintiff says that it was a very dark night, that the engine was provided with no headlight or lights of any description, and when he looked back it was so dark that he could not see the engine good. He further says that his hearing was poor in one ear, and that it was downgrade at that point, which caused the train to run without making much noise.

It is contended by the plaintiff in error that when using the track and right of way of the railroad on the south side of the river as a convenient route to his home he occupied a higher relation to the defendant company than that of licensee, it being insisted that "the defendant so built its bridge with walkways on each side thereof that the workmen on Belle Isle could come across to the Manchester side, and use its tracks as their route to and from their homes; that no invitation in a practical way could have been more strongly given; that it is idle to say that the company only built the bridge to get the men to the shore, and that it never meant for them to use the tracks as their route home. The two things, the bridge and the route, were too closely connected for them to be separated with fairness. The old bridge and route had been used jointly for 50 years, and the new bridge and the route were intended and expected to be used jointly. The use was in fact by invitation."

We have been unable to find any fact or circumstance in the record to support this contention. No relation is disclosed between the defendant and the ironworks other than that of common carrier and shipper, and the defendant can hardly be held to have built its bridge from Belle Isle to the shore for the benefit of the workmen there employéd. It was built for the use and the benefit of the railroad company in hauling freight. The construction of the walkways on each side of the bridge was a mere incident, and, while put there for persons to walk on, they served as a proclamation and warning to such persons not to use the track, rather than an invitation to use it. When those using the walkways on either side of the bridge reached the shore, they bore no relation whatever to the defendant company. They were uncontrolled and free to go where, when, and by whatsoever route they pleased. Such of them as chose to follow the right of way of the railroad as a convenient route to their homes did so voluntarily, and without invitation from the defendant company. On the contrary, 240 feet from where the plaintiff was struck there was a large sign 4 feet square, with the following warning thereon:

"Danger—Beware. The public is notified that these railroad tracks and right of way are no thoroughfare; must be used by trains, and are dangerous for pedestrians, who are warned to use the...