Court Opinion

ID: 9811702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:27:34.12245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:11.738072
License: Public Domain

Montgomery, J.,
dissenting: The going by a wayfarer upon a railroad trestle or bridge so- high that it would be dangerous to get off by leaping to the ground, is per se negligence.
In the case of Little v. Railroad, 118 N. C., 1072, this court said, “It was conceded and settled in Clark v. Railroad, 109 N. C., 430; 14 L. R. A., 749, that one who attempts to walk across an elevated trestle so high that it is dangerous to jump from it to the ground, is negligent, and that where he is injured by a train while crossing, it is the duty of a jury to find in response to- an issue involving the question, that he contributed by his own carelessness to cause the injury.” In McLamb v. Railroad, 122 N. C., 862, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that upon the whole evidence the plaintiff’s intestate was guilty of contributory negligence. In the opinion of this court in that case, it was said by way of parenthesis that that instruction was not given for the reason that the third issue as to the negligence of the de*166ceased was, by consent of the plaintiff, answered in the affirmative before the charge of the court was read. Plaintiff’s intestate there, was killed while walking on a trestle.
I think his Honor should have instructed the jury that the plaintiff as a matter of law was guilty of contributory negligence in going upon the trestle. That being so, it was highly important that the third issue, which involved what is called the last clear chance on the part of the defendant, should have been submitted to> the jury upon full and thorough instructions in the light of negligence on the part of the plaintiff’s intestate.