Case Name: DOBYNS v. YAZOO & M. V. R. CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1907-04-15
Citations: 119 La. 71
Docket Number: No. 16,389
Parties: DOBYNS v. YAZOO & M. V. R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 71–83

Head Matter:
(43 South. 934.)
No. 16,389
DOBYNS v. YAZOO & M. V. R. CO.
(April 15, 1907.
Rehearing Denied May 13, 1907.)
1. Master and Servant&emdash;Injury to Employé&emdash;Negligence&emdash;Proximate Cause.
Where a railroad employé, with a lighted iantern in his hand, being engaged in the discharge of his duties, is killed upon a dark night, at a terminal station, by being run over by a backing locomotive and tender, and it appears that there was no one on the rear of the tender (being the forward part of the machine as it moved) to keep a lookout, and neither headlight nor white lights, as required by the rules of the company, but, instead, a red light (or marker), as prohibited by such rules; that the fireman was engaged in _ supplj'ing fuel to the furnace; that the killing of the employs was not known until after he had been run over; and that the violation _ of the company’s rules involved in the handling of the locomotive in the manner described had been habitually tolerated by the company’s representatives in charge of the station, and was partly attributable to the failure of the company to furnish a yard engine and to furnish the lights required by such rules&emdash; the company will be held liable, in damages, notwithstanding that the employe who was killed may have been at fault, in being on the track, his fault being slight in comparison with that of the company, and the fault of the company being the proximate cause of the accident.
[Ed. Note.&emdash;For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, § 801.]
2. Death&emdash;Damages&emdash;Elements.
In assessing the damages claimed by the widow for the negligent killing of her husband, the distress and mental suffering inflicted on her by the deprivation of her husband’s companionship are, under our law, elements to be considered, and, as her pecuniary loss resulting from the failure of her husband’s support is to be made good upon the hypothesis that, though engaged in a hazardous occupation, he would have furnished such support during the unexpired term of a life the average duration of which is to be assumed, the question of the amount that should be allowed is impossible of determination upon any scientific basis. The most that the courts can do, in such case, is to exercise a sound judicial discretion, and award such amount as, all the circumstances considered, may seem just to both litigants, and not unduly oppressive to either.
[Ed. Note.&emdash;For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Damages, §§ 118-120.]
3. Same.
A freight conductor, 32 years old, of good health and habits and earning $1,200 a year, having lost his life through negligence imputed to the railroad company by which he was employed, and his childless widow having obtained a verdict of $25,000 as damages, held, that the amount is excessive, and should be reduced to $10,000.
[Ed. Note — For cases in point, see Gent. Dig. vol. 15, Damages, §§ 125-130.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Feliciana; Joseph Lindsay Golson, Judge.
Action by Malia D. Dobyns against the Xazoo & Mississippi Yalley Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Amended and affirmed.
Wall & Kilbourne, Hunter Collins Leake, and Gustave Lemle (J. M. Dickinson, of counsel), for appellant. Edward Elliott Wall and Robert C. Wickliffe, for appellee.

Opinion:
MONROE, J.
Plaintiff, appellee, moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the judge, having by an order granted in open court made the appeal returnable in 60 days, subsequently in chambers granted another order fixing a return day, and that the sfecond order was not properly served.
The motion for appeal asks for an appeal "returnable to the Supreme Court according to law," and the order indorsed upon it by the judge on September 21, 1906, reads in part:
"It is ordered that an appeal be granted returnable in sixty days to said Supreme Court," etc.
On September 28th the judge, ex proprio motu, apparently, made a further indorsement on the motion for appeal, as follows:
"In the above order, the court having omitted to fix a determinate day as required by law, the court now fixes Monday, November 12, 1906, as the day on which the appeal herein is made returnable to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. It is further ordered that notice of the fixing of said return day be served on plaintiff herein, or her attorneys of record."
The judgment was signed on September 21st and the appeal was lodged in this court on November 7, 1906.
It does not appear that either of the errors suggested can be imputed to the fault of the appellant or its attorneys. The matter is therefore governed by section 11 of Act No. 45, p. 101, of 1870 (Extra Sess.), which reads, in part, as follows:
"That no appeal of the Supreme Court shall be dismissed on account of any defect, error, or irregularity of the petition, citation, or order of appeal or in the citation of appeal, or service thereof, or because the appeal was not made returnable on a proper day, whenever it shall not appear that such defect, error, or irregularity may be imputed to the appellant or his attorney; but, in all cases, the court shall grant a reasonable time to correct such defects, errors or irregularities, in case they are not waived by the appellee, and may impose on the appellant such terms and conditions as, in its discretion, it may deem necessary for the attainment of' justice."
There is no conflict between these provisions and those of Act No. 92, p. 150, of 1900, which require that the judges of the district courts (parish of Orleans excepted) shall fix the return days for appeals in civil cases not less than 15 nor more than 60 days from the dates of the orders, save by consent, and they have been applied on more than one occasion since the «act of 1900 was adopted, as they had frequently been applied before that time. Orleans & J. R. Co. v. Int. Constn. Co. et al., 113 La. 409, 37 South. 10; Hodge v. Mercantile Co., Ltd., 105 La. 669, 30 South. 142; Watkins Banking Co. v. Louisiana Lumber Co., 47 La. Ann. 581, 17 South. 143; Pearce et al. v. State, 49 La. Ann. 643, 21 South. 737; State v. Dellwood, 33 La. Ann. 1229; Elder v. City, 31 La. Ann. 500; Chaffe & Sons v. Heyner, 31 La. Ann. 594; State ex rel. Hoey & O'Connor v. Brown, Adm'r, 29 La. Ann. 861. As the appellee has appeared, by counsel, and argued the ease on the merits, we do not understand that she desires that its consideration shall be delayed for the correction of the alleged error In the citation. The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled..