Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-07-15
does !, not allow him what he claimed
RAPER V. w. & W. r. CO.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Nav % 1900


RAPER V. w. e W. r. co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May D. 1900.
THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OF
y RAILROAD CROSSING Is PRI-
MA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
COMPANIES NEGLIGENCE.
If SUCH CROSSING IS SAFE TO
ONE CROSSING THE RAILROAD,
THAT Is SUFFICIENT, AL
THOUGH IT MIGHT BE DANGER
Gus TO ONE WALKING ALONG
THE TRACK.
rms is an action brought by the
plaintiff for the recovery of damages
LOT the alleged killing of his intestate.
/ ne testimony tended to show that the
piaintiil's intestatc was killed at
point on the defendants track where
IL crossed the public highway, at
Which point guard rail had been
placed upon the cross ties. and attach
cu 10 them, curvinS at each end. be-
ing ABOUT 20 inches at center from
the ran on the main track. The guard
ran was shivcrcd at u point about one
loot from where the shoe worn bv
riaintiit's intestate was killed by the
uciendants train. The plaintiff con-
tehuS mat the defendant was guilty
OF negligence in the construction of it's
track at said crossing: that the guard
rail was made out OF an old Worn out
ran. which by Wear and tear had be-
come ShiVered; ana that the defendant
was also negligent in failing to fiji
III inc space betwc>a the guard rail
and the main rail with dirt so that :,
person walking along or crossing the
track would not be in danger of hay
ing his foot caught between the guard
raii and the main track. There was
testimony tending to support these,
contentious. The defendant introduced
no evidence. and the jury found that
the defendant was not negligent
The court says:
In the case at bar, il the highway
was Distracted. or its use rendered
dangerous, by any unnecessary act of
the defendant. either in its negligent
construction of the crossing or it's fail
ure TO Keep il in proper repair. then
the plaintiif is entitled to recover such
damages as resulted therefrom The
plalhtlit was entitled to show the dam
Ecrous condition of the crossing This
dangerous condition. when proved
would be prima facie evidence OF neg
iiSence on the part of the defendant
whose duty 1t was to keep the cross
ing In proper condition. Maroon V.
Railroad Co. Cat this term) So S. Il.
423. The defendant might then either
rest upon it's denial of the fact. or
show that the dangerous condition
arose from circumstances and condi-
tons beyond its control. For instance
the defendant might deny that the
guard raj! was dangerous to travellers
on The highway, or, admitting it's dan
ger, might show that the guard rail
was necessary for the safety of it's
train; that it was laid down so as to
cause as little obstruction or danger
as possible to the highway; that it was
ut the proper distance from the main
rail. and that it would be dangerous
TO fill up between the rails with dirt
deny the dangerous condition of the
crossing. the burden of proving which
would rest upon the plaintiff. or it
might assume the burden, and show
that such condition did not arise from
any negligence of its own.
We have treated this case as de-
pending upon the negligent construc-
ton of n crossing at the intersection
of n public highway, and so it is pre-
scented TO us. But there is n sugges-
ton in the evidence that we think pro-
per to notice. If the crossing was so
constructed and maintained by the
defendant as to he perfectly safe TO
any one crossing its track upon any
part of the highway, we think 1t has
sufficiently fulfilled its duty to the
public. even IL it We're possible for Il
person walking down the track to get
his foot caught in such n manner as
would he impossible We're he simply in
the ordinary use of the highway. a
railroad company using machinery of
the most dangerous nature is held to a
high degree of care in the performance
of it's legal duties; but its track is not
quircd to keep it in repair for such a
purpoSc.