Court Opinion

ID: 9808665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:46:04.396944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:44.605961
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.
(dissenting) : The last liability, or “ last clear chance,” as it is called, was with the defendant. Take the analogous case of a man walking on the railroad track at night, and who is run over by reason of the engine having no head-light. Troy v. Railroad, 99 N. C., 298. There, the walking on the railroad track at night is contributory negligence, and the negligence of the defendant in not carrying a head-light began before the act of the plaintiff, but it was a continuing neglect, and continued after the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and was the proximate cause of the injury, for if there had been a head-light the plaintiff could, by the exercise of due diligence, have been seen in time to have prevented the injury, or the plaintiff would have seen the engine in time to have gotten off the track. Here the contributory negligence — if it was such — in going back through the cut when the train had failed to appear, was not the proximate cause of the injury. The plaintiff stepped off the track in full time to avoid being hurt, and his being in the cut was not per se the cause of the injury, but it was the treacherous condition of the earth which the defendant had allowed to slide down and fill up the side ditches. When the plaintiff, like a prudent *1093man, stepped off the track, he stepped upon this man-trap which the negligence of the defendant had prepared for him. As in the case of the engine running without a head-light, the negligence of the defendant began before the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, but it was a continuing negligence and supervened effectively after the contributory negligence of the plaintiff and .but for such negligence continuing till after the act of the plaintiff the attempt of the latter to save himself by stepping off the track on to the side would have been successful. This negligence of the defendant was, therefore, the “ last act,” or in other words the “ proximate cause,” of the injury. The mere going into the railroad cut, however could not in fact be contributory negligence. They are not jper se dangerous places like trestles. The court, therefore, committed no error in the instruction excepted to, which was, “ If the plaintiff stepped from the track on to the embankment in time to avoid a-collision with the train, and the bank gave way on acount of being loose dirt which, had slided into the road from time to time and been permitted to remain on the bed, then the giving way of the bank would be the proximate cause of the injury and the defendant would be liable in damages for the injury.” It was the duty of the defendant to have this cut, through which the plaintiff as its track walker had to pass, in a safe condition. Its failure to do so was the proximate and effective cause of the injury. The evidence is : “ The loose dirt had fallen in the cut and filled it up over the ends of the cross-ties, and in many cases over the rails_ and made a kind of embankment of loose earth. There was no place fixed for a track walker to get out. of the way of a passing train.” The plaintiff testified that, the train being late, he was walking through the cut again to see that everything was safe. He saw the train 50 yards off and *1094got out on tlie bank, which, beingin a defective condition, slided down, carrying the plaintiff under the car wheel, his leg being cutoff close to the hip, and other severe injuries being inflicted. There is sufficient interval between the walls and the track, but the loose earth had slided in, filling it up to the ends of the cross-ties. Soon after this accident the cut was cleaned out, and witnesses testified that a man now stepping off the track in the cut would be perfectly safe from any passing train. The section foreman testified that he told the plaintiff to walk through the cut and back before the train came, to see that the track was safe, and that he gave the plaintiff no instruction what to do if the train was late. The train being late, the plaintiff went through the cut again to see if all.was safe, and on returning was hurt as above stated. The conduct of the plaintiff shows neither contributory negligence nor disobedience of orders, but a faithful and intelligent compliance with the spirit of his instructions, which were to see that the cut was safe before the passage of the train. His duty was to stand at the mouth of the cut to waive the engine down if the cut was not safe, and how could he do that when the train was over an hour late, except by again patrolling the cut? ITe had done this and was returning to his post when the injury occurred, not from being in the cut, which was wide enough for his safety, but by the treacherous condition of the soil, which had slided in, and ■which the defendant had negligently permitted to remain in close and dangerous proximity to the track. From the evidence the cut required frequent inspection, and, the train being detained, the plaintiff was in the discharge of his duty and disobeying no express orders when again passing through the cut. It was the duty of the defendant to provide a safe place for its employees to work, and the cut as then filled up was unsafe for a track walker *1095who might be met in the cut, while inspecting the track, by a belated train, as plaintiff was. The plaintiff had no knowledge of the danger, this being at night and his first tour of duty at that cut. It was in evidence that the plaintiff took every precaution in patrolling the cut by stopping again and again to listen. In Owens v. Railroad, 88 N. C., 502, it was held that the-railroad was liable for injury to an employee caused by the sliding in of the dirt in a cut, if (as in the present case) the employee was not guilty of contributory negligence.
The court properly instructed the jury : “ If the plaintiff was instructed to watch the cut, and after waiting at the east end for a considerable time and finding the train did not come,, and knowing the condition of the weather and the condition of the cut and its liability to land slides, he went through the cut to the west end and then stopped and listened again, and not hearing the engine, he again entered the cut, and from time to time stopped and listened for the train and proceeded towards the east end, and about the middle of the cut the train came upon him and he attempted to get out of the way as alleged, and owing to the steepness of the bank of loose dirt and its soft condition, due to the excessive rains, he was thrown under the train and injured as alleged, then he was not guilty of contributory negligence.”
The other exceptions are without merit.