Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-05-28
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MAR TIN.
Exclusively for Virsinian-P ilot.)
DUNN V. w. & w. r. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
March IS, 1899.
WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED
BY THE RUNNING AWAY OF HIS
HORSES. WHICH WERE FRIGHT
ENED by STEAM ESCAPING
FROM AN ENGINE, WHICH
COULD HAVE BEEN KEPT ON ~
TRACK OUT OF TIE WAY, BUT
WAS KEPT ON ~ TRACK ADJO1N-
ING y STREET. WITH suETI-
GENT STEAM ON TO OPEN TIE
SAFETY VALVE, THE QUESTION
or NEGLIGENCE IS FOR THE
JURY.
This was an action to recover dam
ages for injuries received by plaintiff
through the alleged negligence OF the
defendant in causing or permitting
steam to escape from ono OF its en-
gines while standing in or near pub
lie street, whereby the horses of plain
tiff were frightened and ran away.
The court directed verdict FOR the
defendant and plaintiff appealed.
The court says:
the case, as now before us. presents
the single question whether there was
sufficient evidence TO 20 10 the jury as
TO the negligence of the defendant, and.
for the purpose of this inquiry, the
evidences must be construed in the light
most Favorable for the plaintin We
think there was sufficient evidence to
go TO the jury tending to prove the
negligence of the defendant arising
not only from ncgligently causing or
permitting the escape of steam, but
MISC from Keeping the engine for more
than eight hours. during the busiest
part of the day in Il position where it
might naturally Brighten the horses of
those lawfully upon the street. Rail
road companies are, at least in con-
temptation Of law. organized primarily
for the public benefit, and 1t is this
public use that is the sole foundation
for the extraordinary powers that are
conferred upon them. such as the right
OF condemnation. Given such eXclu-
sive privileges. they are held to an
equal responsibility; and they will be
protected In the proper exercise of all
lawful acts that may be reasonably
necessary in the performance OF their
eXacting duties to the public as COM
mon carriers. II it had been necessary
for any public purpose to have kept the
engine by the side of Il public street.
then the mere act would not, of itself.
have been negligence: but to keep an
engine under steam. in II place Of dan
ger to the public. when it could just
as we'll have been placed beyond all
opportunity OF danger is ut least
strong evidence of negligence. 1T is
true the mere presence of the engine
was not "causa causans" of the injury
to the plaintiff. but it was certainly
"causa sine QUA nom" without which
tho injury would not have happened.
Whether the steam escaped through
the automatic safety valves. or was
blown off in any way by the fireman. is
immaterial to the issue, as either might
No,
valves are necessary to prevent eX-
plosion. That may be true but was
ii necessary to keep up, for so long
time. head OF steam sufficient to open
these valves? 1t is also said that il
becomes necessary to put on the In
1cctor, so as TO force water into the
boiler when it gets too low but was
it necessary to do so at the precise
moment when tho plaintiff was passing?
All these are questions for the Jury.
The use of the highway belongs TO
the public by common right, and no one
can cDsiruct it without paramount nee
cssiy. This is equally true whether the
obstruction is in the highway or so i'm
mediatciy adjacent thereto as to OBJ
struct it's use. 1t is unnecessary to add
that Whatever renders dangerous the
use of a highway is an obstruction.
The public has certainly as much right
to the highway AS the railroad com
palH mas 10 us TlSnL Oh way, and each
should respect the relative rights of
the other The public would not be
permitted to unnecessarily obstruct the
track. or do anything that would en-
danger passing train. Neither must
tho company obstruct the highway. nor
place in useless jeopardy the life of the
individual.
The rule that the existence OF OBJ
structions in a street is such evidence
of negligence as requires of the an
thorities explanation in order to escape
liability is laid down in Mayor V. Shelf
field. 4 Well. 1866, and we do not
see why it should not apply to the cir
cumstances of the case At bar. For the
error of his honor in directing n YER
dict upon the issue, thus taking the
case from the jury. Il new trial must be
ordered. New trial.