Case Name: O. M. and CHARLES NEEDHAM v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1916-04-19
Citations: 171 N.C. 763
Docket Number: 
Parties: O. M. and CHARLES NEEDHAM v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 171
Pages: 763–764

Head Matter:
O. M. and CHARLES NEEDHAM v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
(Filed 19 April, 1916.)
Railroads — JMglitening Horses — Trials—Negligence—Evidence—Verdict, Directing — Appeal and Error.
Where damages are sought in an action for injury to plaintiff’s team, and it appears that the injury was caused by the horses becoming frightened at the defendant’s train while left unhitched in the field three-fourths of a mile from defendant’s railroad crossing, a peremptory instruction to answer the issue of negligence in defendant’s favor, if the facts are so found, nothing else appearing, is not erroneous; and where the damages complained of were evidently caused in this' manner, an insufficient opening for the passage of the team at the crossing becomes immaterial.
Appeal by plaintiff from Qline, J., at August Term, 1915, of Subby.
Action to recover damages for injury to horses belonging to the plaintiffs, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant.
• The issues of negligence were answered in favor of the defendants under a peremptory instruction of his Honor that if the jury believed the evidence, to answer the issues “No,” and the plaintiffs excepted.
0. B. Snow and T. W. Kallam for plaintiffs.
~W. F. Garter and Manly, Eendren & Womble for defendant.

Opinion:
Pee Oubiam.
This action is to recover damages for injury to two horses. The horses were hitched to a wagon and were at work in a field about three-fourths of a mile from the defendant's railroad crossing.
The plaintiff, Charles Needham, who had the team in charge, left the team standing unhitched, while he went to the rear of the wagon to place an empty barrel in it. Tbe horses became frightened and ran away, and in passing over the crossing of the defendant, while running away, were injured.
There is some evidence that the opening upon the crossing was not as wide as it ought to have been, but sufficient space was left for the passage of teams and vehicles, and it is clear that the real cause of the injury was not the condition of the crossing, but the fright and running away of the horses.
In our opinion, there is no error in the instructions given to 'the jury.
No error.