Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-06-17
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
viRCiNiAM-PiLOT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest 10
Our PeoDIe.
MEANS v. CAROLINA r. r.. CO.

MEANS ". CAROLINA r. II. co.
Supreme Court OF North Carolina.
April - 1900.
a RAILROAD COMPANY is LIABLE
FOR THE DEATH OF A BRAKE
MAN WHO WAS DIRECTED BY
THE ENGINEER, WHO HAD
CHARGED OF THE TRAIN, TO
COLLECT FARES, AND WHO IN
DOING SO FELL BETWEEN THE
OARS AND WAS KILLED, THE
ACCIDENT BEING CAUSED BY
THE SPEED OF THE TRAIN AND
a FAILURE TO HAVE a CONDUC-
TOR THEREON.
The Facts appear from the opinion of
the court
The court SAYS:
The plaint;fs intestate was killed be-
fore the passage of the fellow servant
act of 1897 Cchapter 56. Priv Acts, and
is governed by the law as 1T existed
before its passage. The train that kill
Cd the intcState was composed of
freight cars and passenger coach,
used for the accommodation of the
tiuvGing public. 1T was run on a regu-
lar schedule TIME, ana did II ccglsidcra-
bic passenger business. 1t was under
the control and management of John
Hail, who WAS botn engineer and coq-
ductor. ana the intcStatc was one of
the employees composing the crew. His
employment was graded as that of
brakeman, and his duties were to act
as q brakeman. and also to attend the
shanty' coach, keep ii in order, keep
up fires. and. when directed TO do 50 by
Hall, to collect the passenger fares.
Han had the right to employ the hands
composing his crew, the right to dis
charge them, and had the right to dis
charse the interstate, Means. and the
intestMte knew this. On the night the
1ntostate was killed. at Il station on the
defendants road called "Croucc" it is
In evidence Offered by the plaintifr)
mat Hall ordered the intcstate to col
lect the passenger fares and bring them
To him. Hall was the vice principal.
and, as SUCH must he treated as the
principal. AS such. he had the right
The nower-to discharge the intestate
from the employment of the defendant
l'his mower was admitted by Hall os
the witness stand. Hall then had the
Nght to order the intestate TO bring
nan the tickets. and the undisputed evil
dencc Is that he brought Hail the tick
cts The plaintiffs evidence (Sam Reid)
is that Hall ordered the intestate. lust
before starting the train at Crouce's
station. to bring him the tickets 1t is
true that Hall denies this. But, as the
plaintiff had offered evidence that he
dld 1t WAS then n question for
the jury; and from their verdict.
he did give tho order. The plaintiff Of
fcrcd evidence that at the t:me the in
tcstate gave Hall the tickets the train
was moving too fast To admit of the
intestate's getting off the train. and on
Vt again, with safety. This is denied
by the defendants evidence. and It then
became question for the Jury: and
We must take 1T. from their verdict.
that they fseliVed the plaintiffs evil
deDcc. AS it seems to us that these
questions were fairly submitted to the
Jury, we cannot reverse their findings
Taking these findings to be true. the
defendant was negligent in ordering
IN" intcsiata to bring Hall the tickets.
without giving him time to do so. with
out having to incur the danger-the
hazard-he did in obeying this order.
Ut is seen that the dcfndant was rngli-
gent in running this train without n
conductor. and imposing the duties of
this position on the intestate md that
1t was guilty of negligence in giving
this order to the intestate without Civ
ing him time to perform ii Without
danger to his life. 1t fs admitted that
the intestate was killed by the defend
ants train and the jury have found
that the killing was caused by the neg
ligence of the defendant. We think
there was sufficient evidence of negli-
gnce TO authorize the verdict. if the
jury belived the evidence: and it seems
from their verict that they did: and
we cannot review their findings