Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-09-13
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
ylRcINlAM-PlIOT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are of Interest to
Our People.
ARRowGooD V. s. c. & G. f. Ry

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May %, 1900
RAILROAD COMPANY MUST USE
"A GREATER DEGREE OF CARE
IN RUNNING IT'S TRAINS AT A
PLACE USED BY THE PUBLIC AS
a PASSWAY THAN WHERE THE
TRACK IS NOT SO USED.
WHENEVER NECESSARY THE
COMPANY SHOULD REQUIRE
THE FIREMAN TO ASSIST THE
ENGINEER IN KEEPING A LOOK
OUT.
If BY ORDINARY CARE IN KEEP
ING ~ LOOKOUT THE KILLING
OF a PERSON MIGHT HAVE
BEEN PREVENTED, SUCH DE-
FECTIVE LOOKOUT WAS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE AC-
CIDENT.
The points decided appear from the
opinion of the court.
The court says:
The court instructed the Jury that
IL they found from the evidence that
TINS was public passway, as here
tofore defined. and that the engineer,
by reason of the curve in the road and
the obstruction of the smokestack.
could not keep a proper lookout for
persons on the track, and that the fire.
man could have done so, then it would
have been the duty of the defendant
TO have had this fireman TO have as
sisted the engineer in keeping this look
out. And also: What might be or
binary care under certain circum-
stances might not be ordinary care un-
der Other circumstances; and If you
should find from the evidence, under
the rules to be hereinafter given you,
that the public were in the habit of
using the railroad track at the point
of the accident as a passway. then q
greater degree of care would be re-
puired of the defendant in running its
trains at this point than the defendant
would have exercised in running it's
trains along the track where the public.
use the track as Il paSsway.' All
that the defendant is required to do is
to use ordinary care under the circum-
stances of the case. and, in determn-
Ing whether the defendant was negli-
gent as alleged in the complaint. you
must first ascertain what duty. If any,
it owned the plaintiffs intestate at the
time of the alleged killing, and. If II
owed duty. whether or not 1t failed
TO perform that duty" The above
paragraphs OF the charge are excepted
to. but without cause. There was am
PIE evidence to go to the jury tending
To- show that the track was used habit
ualy as passWay. and in telling the
jury that, IL they found such to he the
fact the defendant should observe n
greater degree of care than in running
It's trains where the track was not so
Used, the court was stating almost Il
ii uism. In moving trains through Il
c.owucd city. 1t must be at lower rate
% speed, with much greater control
over the engine, and keener lookout
kept in front, than in going along a
straight track in an open and unin-
habited country, and the court properly
told the jury that the amount of care
depended upon the circumstances of
the case. So on a straight track. the
careful lookout OF the engineer would
ordinarily he sufficient: but on wind
ing mountain track if the engineer
could not see the track when the en-
cine turned il was his duty 10 have the
fireman lookout. II by any reason n
proper lookout cannot be kept without
the aid OF the fireman he should be
used. II by reason OF their duties.
either the fireman or engineer. or both.
are SO indered that proper lookout
cannot be kept, then il is the duty or
the defendant, at such places on its
road, to have q third man employed for
that Indispensable duty
But Notwithstanding "a human bcin-
is down helpless on the track, and is
there in his own wrong, the railroad
company acquires no right to run over
and kill him for his foolhardiness. if
l.a-a=eli ii1.l.s- j. -Le--aNnilnl-
Even II COW or n hog does not forfeh
its life under such circumstances, il
the Company'S servants can ny ordi-
nary care avoid killing. If, on this oc-
casion. by reasonable. ordinary care.
in keeping n lookout on both sides Of
n winding mountain road. whose curves
would sometimes obscure the track
..--------- ----------