Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-07-14
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. 3. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOB
VlRciNIAN-PlLOT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are of Interest to
Our People.
SOUTHERN R. co. v. COOPER

SOUTHERN r. co. V. COOPER.
supreme Court Of Appeals of Virginia.
June II, 1900.
~ RAILROAD COMPANY is NOT
LIABLE WHEN HORSES BECOME
FRIGHTENED UPON A HIGHWAY
AT THE MERE SIGHT OF
TRAINS. OR NOISES NECESsARI-
LY INCIDENT TO THE OPERA
TIoN OF IT'S ROAD.
IT is LIABLE FOR SOUNDING IT'S
WHISTLE IN A CARELESS MAN
NER OR AT AN IMPROPER TINE.
1T Is NEGLIGENCE TO SOUND A
WHISTLE IN VIOLATION OF 4
CITY ORDINANCE. AND If THIS
IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF
AN INJURY THE COMPANY IS
LIABLE.
1T is NOT THE DUTY OF THE
COMPANY TO RING THE BELL
SO AS TO KEEP HORSES AT A
SAFE DISTANCE.
This was a suit against n railroad
company for damages caused by the
frightening of plaintiffs horses by one
OF defendant's engines. The horse was
in buggy on n highway near cross
engine which neither blew it's whistle
nor rung its bell. From Il judgment
Tor plaintiff the company appealed.
The court says:
The question presented, is, what duty
did PLAINTIFF in error owe TO the do
PENDANT in error and fail to perform?
This may be disposed of in connec-
ton with the assignment OF error 10
the ruling OF the court below in refus-
ing instructions Nos. /. ;. and ask
ed Tor and in modifying its Sth in
Struction. They are as follows:
No. l. The court instructs the Jury
that under the law OF Virginia. Dan
vile being an Incorporated city. the
defendant had the right to omit the
sounding Of the whistle in approa ching
the Henry street crossing where the
accident occurred. And If the jury be-
lieve from the evidence that the acct
dent was caused by the failure TO
sound the whistle, the defendant was
not negligent. and they must find for
the defendant"
that the defendant had the right to
presume that the less noise made BY
the train in approach the crossing
the less danger there was OF frighten-
ing horses near the track, and while
the defendant would be. fable for in
1uries caused by Frightening horses by
unnecessary noise. it is not liable for
injuries caused by frightening horses
too far OFF for collision. when it makes
as little noise as possible"
mo. 4. The court further instructs
the jury that opcrn ting railroads by
steam being lawful. the defendant had
the right TO run its engines and trains
where they can be seen by man and
beast, the right to make noises Incl
dent TO the movement and working of
It's engines, and the defendant is not
liable for Injuries occasioned by n horse.
when being driven on the highway.
taking fright at the sight OF an en-
CINE, nor at the noises usually made
by Il running engine"
NO. 6. The court further instructs
the jury that the defendants en-
ployees in charge of the engine had n
right to presume that horses near the
track would not be frightened by an
approaching engine, and il was not
their duty to stop the engine or to give
any signals when the horse was seen
approaching the crossing too far of
for collision. and giving no .intlica-
tons OF fright when seen by some OF
the employees on the engine
NO. y. The court instructs tho jury
that If they believe from the evidence
in this case that an ordinance of the
CITY OF Danville prohibited the sound
ing OF whistles upon the engine. which
is charged to have ca nsed the accident
IN QueSr1Urr 1T me TfCrIry SrFc6T Cross
inG. or at the point designated at tho
Whistling post, then the failure to blow
such whistle was not negligence
The court struck out OF instruction s
the words failure 10 blow such whis-
-----.-------------------