Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-06-26
COURT DECISIONS.
DIeESTED BY w. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRcINIAN-PiLoT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are Of Interest to
Our People.
HUFF v. C. g. o. R'Y CO.

u
Supreme Court of Appeals, West Va
April IA, 1900.
A PERSON USING THE TRACK OF
A RAILROAD AS A FOOT PATH,
AND WHO is INJURED BY A
TRAIN. CANNOT RECOVER FROM
THE COMPANY. UNLESS IT is
GUILTY OF WANTON OR GROSS
NEGLIGENCE.
Huff brought an action in the circuit
court oil kanawha county against the
chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company,
and. upon Il demurrer by the defendant
TO the plaintin's evidence. judgment
was given tor the defendant, and the
plainti1f appeals.
Hun was at Montgomery, and walked
down the track from that point to
Hahdhey. in company with two other
persons. They were in what us called
the yard of the railroad company at
Handley, where there were numerous
railroad tracks, and where numerous
trains passed east and west on that
great railroad. and there was IL SHIFT
ing engine. pulling cars and trains here
AND there at all hours. This yard was
IN constant use by the railroad
company in the transaction of
o'clock of the night OF March
"a. 1895. when Huff and his COM
paniohS had reached Il point close to
The roundhouSe, where engines were
housed they met an east-bound freight
Tram. ana stepped out of its way, and
when IL had passed them about half it's
length, the yard engine backing into
tne rounuhouse OH another track along
Side or that occupied by the freight
train. ran over HUFF. who was on It's
track. cutting off one leg and the foot
oil ANOTHER teg.
The Court SaVS.
1t plainly appears, and is not uues-
toned. that when Huff received his in
jury he WAS making use Of the track
us a loot path on ground owned and oc-
cupied by the company, and absolutely
necessary Tor II i'll the transaction OF
IT'S business. and ground which it was
necessary that the company should
nave absolute control over. Thus. Huff
Was III every sense. II trespasser on
inat ground without the slightest color
ol rlSnt TO he there. Several hundred
YARDS from the point of accident the
company had placed signal boards of
warning. telling everybody to keen off
the tracks Of TINT yard as trains might
DC expected In at any time, and that II
was IL dangerous place. But who would
want any signal board of such warn
lHE! That yard, that was full of tracks
constantly In use by passing trains. and
IN switching. making up, and handling
trains. and dotted with switch lights
S"DNii tiS various tracks. A railroad
track anywhere alone is q warning of
great danger; but how much more dan
Eerous is that yard at IILlndley, full OF
tracks. trains, and engines at all times
or at any time? We may safely saw
mat scarcely anywhere on earth. in
broad daylight. could more dangerous
place be found; but how much more
dangerous still between and 9 o'clock
or a dark March night? Huff went
right into the jaws OF death, with his
eyes and senses open. and thus commit
ted an act of the grossest negligence
an act full OF danger not only, but full
OF suicidal rashncss. on his part.
our cases decide this case for the de-
fendant. In Spicer V. Railway Co. a.
w. va OLA. we held that "a person US
ing railroad track MS n foot path for
his own convenience. elsewhere than at
n lawful crossing. and injured nv a
train. cannot recover damages of the
railroad company. unless it be guilty Of
wanton or gross negligence" The
many authorities referred to In that
case VIII support this position
Affirmed.