Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-11-03
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vlRclNlAN- PILOT.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are Of Interest to
Our People.
SOUTHERN II. CO. V. DAWSON

hhSi.N IL. CO. V. DAWSON.
supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
september q, 1900.
A PASSENGER ON A FREIGHT
TRAIN ASSUMES THE RISKS
NECESSARILY INCIDENT TO
SUCH TRAIN, BUT THE CAR
RIER OWES HIM THE SAME DE-
GREE OF CARE TO AVOID IN
JURY AS If HE WE'RE UPON A
PASSENGER TRAIN.
WHEN AN INJURY HAPPENS TO A
PASSENGER FROM THE SEPARA-
TlON AND DERAILING OF A
TRAIN, THE PRESUMPTION is
THAT THE COMPANY WAS NEG
LlGENT. AND THE BURDEN Is
ON IT TO PROVE THAT THE
DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY INEv-
TABLE CASUALTY, OR BY SOME
CAUSE WHICH HUMAN CARE
AND FORESIGHT COULD NOT
PREVENT.
The court saws:
The defendant in error bought n
ticket which entitled him to transpor-
tatlon on Il freight train of the plaintiff
III error, which was provided with Il
car Tor the use of passengers. from
CoVesville in Albcmarie county to Fa-
bersville in Nelson county. While on the
way. the train. consisting OF about
thirty cars, separated from some un-
known and unexplained cause. several
cars were derailed, and the separated
cars collided with such force that the
defendant in error was thrown from
his seat with great violence and seri-
ously injured
The suit for damages followed, and
N n nj in m x-nr of In do
PENDANT III error for $4,000.
The sole ground of error assigned is
that the Circuit Court refused To set
aside the verdict upon the ground that
il was excessive and contrary TO the
law and the evidence.
The plaintiff in error contends that
the accident was inevitable and that
no Skill on care on its part could have
avoided it. and that the risk of such
an accident was assumed by the dcfen-
dant in error when he bought his
ticket.
II is we'll settled that n railroad com
pany is held to as strict an accounta-
biity for the negligence OF its en-
pioyces in the management of a freight
train with II caboose attached in which
passengers are seated. as the law inn
poses I'm the transportation of passen-
gers on passenger trains, specially pro-
vided for that purpose.
When person becomes Il passenger
on n freight tram he assumes the risks
and Inconvenience necessarily and rea-
sonably incident to that mode of travel.
but life and lamb are as valuable in
the caboose rs in the palace car and
the degree of care required to avoid
damage to the passenger is as high in
the one case as the other.
Where an injury happens as the re
suit OF an accident such as the record
discoses the presumption is that it
occurred BY the negligence of the rail-
road company and the burden of proof
is on the company to establish that
there has been no negligence whatso-
ever. and that the damage has been
caused by inevitable casualty or by
some cause which human care and
foresight could notrprevent.
In the case at bar the plaintiff in er-
Tor has failed to sustain the burGen
thus imposed upon 1t. The evidence
which has been certified. was sufficient
to justify The jury in the conclusion
reached that the accident was the re-
suit of negligence on the part of the
plaintiff in error; certainly it. cannot
be said that the evidence is plainly in
sufficient to support the verdict. q con
ciusion necessary to Justify this court
in setting the verdict aside because
contrary to the evidence. Affirmed.