The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-04-02
Want of Block System
Means Negligence.
A PUBLIC MENACE
In Writing Opinion Giving New Trial
in Case of Stewart VS.. Railroad,
Judge Clark Takes Occasion to
Intimate that Failure to Provide
Modern Devices is Negligence


TENS in North Carolina to use the
'bloclx" system of signals on their
lines render the roads liable in law for
death or injuries arising out of any
collision of trains, Notwithstanding the
fact that the persons so killed or in
jured may have been so negligent in
the performance of their duties as to
bring about the accident?
In the case of Stewart VS.. Railroad,
where Seaboard engineer was killed
through a collision between the tex
ira engine which he was running
from Raleigh to Southern Pines with
a regular train of the road, the SUI
preme Court after granting new trial
to the plaintiff on the ground that the
fact of the collision was preSump-
ton of negligence on the part of the
road, which it was the sole province
of a jury to determine, strongly intl-
mated that the failure of the road to
have the "block" system in operation
would render it liable for any collision
which might occur in its absence.
The defense claimed that certain
well known rules as to rights of trains
should have operated to keep the de-
ceased at Vass, and the plaintiff con-
tended that there was negligence on
the part of the agent at VaSs in per-
hitting the deceased to leave and III
not notifying Raleigh that he had done
so; and also that the failure to pro-
vide telegraph offices between Vass
and Southern Pines was negligence
which might have caused the accident;
also that it was the duty of the de-
PENDANT road to maintain the block
system for the protection of its trains.
The opinion, which was written by
the Chief Justice, was concurred in
Al. Il IL
er and Connor, and Justice Brown,
having heard the case below, did not
take part in the decision.
The following extracts from the
opinion will show the circumstances
under which the case arose, the causes
of error assigned by the court and the
intimations of the Chief Justice as to
the legal effect of the failure to pro-
vide the modern "block system on
the road:
Stewart V. Seaboard Air Line II. II. Co.
Clark, G. y. This is an action for
damages for negligently killing plain
tiff's interstate, S. T Stewart, a loco
motive engineer in defendants service.
On % June, 1903, he was ordered to
take engine No. 200 and tender and
run extra from Raleigh to Hamlet,
on the main line, over probably the
busiest part of the system. Not run
ming on any schedule he was necessar-
lily subject in his movements to tele-
graphic orders. He had such tele-
graphic orders to pass the regular No.
at Vass and notice that regular pas
senger train No. Sc was running forty
minutes late, but no order that he
would pass No. at Vass. At Vass he
passed regular freight No. s. He then
went into telegraph office and asked if
there were any further orders, but
the agent told him no, and gave him
clearance card. He accordingly
proceeded towards Southern Pines, the
next telegraph station, and within two
miles of that station he collided with
train No and, with three other men.
was killed. There were three stations
between Vass and Southern Pines. a
distance of eight miles but no tele-
graph office was maintained at either
Of these, though one had been for
erly
Upon this evidence His Honor init
mated that upon all the evidence the
plaintiff could not recover, whereupon
the plaintiff submitted to non-suit
and appealed.
Collision Presumption of Negligence
The intimation of the court was err
roneous. This cause should have been
submitted to the jury, who alone are
empowered to find what was the prox-
late negligence which caused the
death.
This case, arising out of collision,
is one of those in which the law raises
presumption of negligence on the
part of the carrier.
If there were facts consistent with
the absence of negligence on the part
of the defendant, still there would be
q conflict with the presumption of neg
ligence on the part of the defendant
arising from the fact of collision,
which presumption is itself evidence.
The statute (1SS7 Oh. 33) requires
the defendant TO both plead and to
prove contributory negligence, and
there being presumption of negli-
gence in the defendant the case must
go to the jury The court cannot ad-
judge that defense is fully proved,
nor can it hold that there is no evil
dence of negligence when proof of the
collision raises presumption of neg
ligence.
Other Evidence of Negligence.
Besides, there was this evidence (be-
sides other) tending to show negli-
gence independent of the presump-
ton, which, as above, has been held
to arise from the fact of the collis-
ion.) 1t was according to the evil
dence, the duty of the agent at Vass
to notify the engineer of train No. 6
of the departure of extra zoo" (Stew-
art) from Vass, which he did not do
and as the collision was six miles from
Vass and two miles from Southern
Pines. this negligence would seem to
have caused the collision. The witness
further stated that if the operator at
Vass had wired the train dispatcher of
the departure of No. 200 that in his
opinion No. could have been prevent
ed from going beyond Manly. The
train, dispatcher who was at Raleigh,
while giving Stewart orders to pass No.
8 at Vass, apparently from the evil
dence. overlooked making any meeting
place for the extra 200' and No. s.
though he knew that No. had no
knowledge of No. 200 being on the
road. If he was to pass No as we'll
as No. s at Vass. Why was
No. 8 alone mentioned in his
order?- When the agent at Vass
uaxo