Court Opinion

ID: 9813003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:53:23.786935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:30.554860
License: Public Domain

Claeicson, J.
We think tbe evidence sufficient to be submitted to a jury and tbe motion for nonsuit in tbe court below should have been overruled.
In Jenkins v. R. R., 196 N. C., 466, speaking to tbe subject, at p. 469, is tbe following: “If tbe jury found from tbe evidence that tbe deceased by bis own negligence contributed to tbe injuries which re-*117suited in bis death, then there was evidence from which the jury could have further found that notwithstanding such contributory negligence, the proximate cause of such injuries was the failure of defendants to exercise due care, after deceased could have been discovered, sitting on the end of the cross-tie, in an apparently helpless condition, to stop the train and thus avoid the injuries to deceased. The principle upon which the doctrine of the hast clear chance’ is founded, is recognized and enforced in this jurisdiction, as just and necessary for the protection of human life. Redmon v. R. R., 195 N. C., 764, 143 S. E., 829. (p. 470.) It has been the policy of the law, certainly in this jurisdiction, as shown by numerous decisions of this Court, to hold railroad companies, and their employees, in charge of moving trains, to a high standard of duty towards persons who are or who may reasonably be exjDeeted to be on their tracts in front of a moving train. This policy is justified as tending to protect human life. That its vigorous enforcement may sometimes result in the recovery of damages in a case where upon its peculiar facts, the plaintiff does not seem to be entitled to damages does not require or justify a relaxation of well settled principles.” Hill v. R. R., 169 N. C., 740; Caudle v. R. R., 202 N. C., 404.
In Allman v. R. R., 203 N. C., 660, at p. 663, we said: “There is no evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury that the plaintiff’s intestate was asleep or drunk on the track, or in a helpless condition on the track, or oblivious or otherwise insensible of danger. The plaintiff’s intestate was not at a crossing.” This matter is fully discussed in Hill v. R. R., supra.
We will not comment on the evidence, as the case goes back to be tried by a jury, but we will say that the evidence, direct and circumstantial, on the part of plaintiff indicates, if believed by a jury, that plaintiff’s intestate was oblivious or otherwise insensible of danger, and therefore the case should have been submitted to a jury. For the reasons given, the judgment of nonsuit must be
Reversed.