Court Opinion

ID: 9809022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:58:28.347887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:00.601009
License: Public Domain

Ruffin, J.,
dissenting. I am unable to concur in the view which a majority of the court take of this case, and especially in the reasoning upon which they rest their, decision. Even if I understood the facts as they do, I do not think I could assent *513to their conclusion; but with an understanding of them so wholly at variance with theirs, it is impossible that I could ever do so.
In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that his intestate, Mike O’Donnell, was in the employment of the defendant, as an engineer, upon one of its locomotive engines run upon its railroad ; that it was the duty of the defendant to provide a safe road-bed for its trains to pass over, but that instead of doing so, it so negligently maintained its road-bed, at a certain place situate, near Lexington in Davidson county, known as the “Caldwell cut,” that on the night of the 7th of January, 1881, a large mass of rock and earth was permitted to fall from the sides of the “out” upon the track of defendant’s road, whereby the engine driven by said intestate was thrown from the track, and by reason of the concussion so produced, he was thrown from his proper position upon the engine, and instantly killed.
In support of these allegations, the plaintiff introduced a number of witnesses who testified as to the dangerous condition of the “cut” in question, extending through many years; that it was from thirty to forty feet deep, and so constructed that large rocks were left projecting over the road-bed, so that if they fell, they must needs fall upon the track, and were of such a size that they would extend across the entire track; that the rocks were filled with seams and powder cracks produced by blasting, through which the water percolated, and, by freezing, served to dislodge them from the sides of the “cut,” and to precipitate them upon the track; that on several occasions, prior to the disaster resulting in intestate’s death, large masses of rubbish, consisting of several tons of rock and earth and sufficient to produce fatal consequences, had fallen, from the effects of time and the weather, upon the track at this point; that on the night in question a similar slide took place, whereby a complete obstruction was thrown upon the track, and amongst other things a large rock five feet in length and three feet in thickness, which lay directly across the track and which chiefly caused the disaster; that the day after the accident the defendant caused to be re*514moved from the sides of the “cut” five or six car-loads of loose stone aud earth, which were in a condition to be precipitated upon the road-bed; that the night was dark, and it had been snowing, and there were some three or four inches of snow on the ground, though none on the sides of the “cut.”
It was also in evidence that the winter of 1880-81 was an extremely cold one, and for three weeks prior to the 7th of January, the cold and freezing had been unusually intense.
I have been thus particular in setting out the substance of the plaintiff's testimony in chief, in order that it may be seen that it establishes a clear prima faoie ease of gross negligence on the part of the defendant, and that there is nowhere to be seen in it even the faintest suggestion of any contributory negligence on the part of the intestate.
In its answer, the defendant denies that either it or its agents or employees had been guilty of any negligence or carelessness about the matters complained of, and says that it is informed and believes that the plaintiff's intestate came to his death by reason of his own neglect and carelessness.
In support of this latter branch of its defence, testimony was offered going to show that another train had safely passed through the “ Caldwell cut ” about one-half hour before the disaster befell the train upon which the intestate was; that the winter was one of extreme and unusual severity, such as the defendant had no right to anticipate and was not bouud to provide against; that the approach from Leonard's bridge to the “cut” was at. agrade of fifty-two feet to the mile, and an ascending train could, with the aid of such appliances as were in use at the time, be stopped in half the time requisite upon a level; that the head-light, which was in good condition, threw the light ahead, so that an object four feet in size could be seen at the distance of one hundred and fifty or two hundred yards, by one properly watchful ; that the regular schedule time for the train, to which the accident happened, was thirty miles an hour, and at that rate and up such a grade the train might be brought to a stop within *515seventy-five or a hundred yards; the train that night was nearly an hour behind time upon leaving Greensboro, where the conductor and the intestate, both, received instructions not to undertake to make up any part of the lost time, but to confine themselves strictly to the schedule time; -that instead of doing so, the intestate drove his engine at the rate of fifty or sixty miles an hour, and though he was required by the regulations of the defendant company to slacken his speed when crossing the bridge at Leonard’s creek, lie omitted to do so on this occasion. To show the rate at which the train had been driven by the intestate, the defendant introduced its conductor (in charge of the wrecked train), who testified that when the train stopped at Thomasville, which was the last stopping place before reaching the point of the disaster, he reminded the intestate of their instructions not to exceed the regular time; that the distance between Thomasville and the “cut” is nine and a half miles, and they left the former place exactly at four minutes before eleven o’clock, and the disaster occurred exactly at eight minutes after that hour, thus showing that the train had been driven at the rate of some forty-five or fifty miles per hour.
In order to rebut this show of negligence on the part of his intestate, the plaintiff offered testimony going to show that the train in question did not stop at Thomasville at all that night, but passed without stopping. He also offered testimony of a skilled engineer to the effect that an object, even so large as a cow, could not be distinguished by the aid of the head-ligbt at a greater distance than fifty or sixty yards, and that going up such a grade as the one in question, owing to the necessity of keeping the fireman’s door open and the glare thereby produced, the engineer could not see ahead at all.
In this state of the proofs, the court, at the request .of the plaintiff, instructed the jury that if they believed that the defendant was guilty of negligence, then it devolved upon it to satisfy *516them by a preponderance of evidence that the plaintiff's intestate was killed by his own negligence, or that he contributed to his death.
The jury were further instructed, that the burden of proving the defendant’s negligence devolved upon the plaintiff, and if the injury could have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care on the part of the intestate and he failed to use such care, it would make him guilty of contributory negligence, and the plaintiff could not recover; that it was for them to determine upon the evidence what his conduct was: was ho running bis train, in violation of orders and the rules of the company, at an increased speed ? or could he have seen by his head-light the mass of rock anti earth upon the track in time to stop the train? if he could, it was his duty to do so; and if he neglected any other duty, his failure would be contributory negligence in him; and if the evidence, by a preponderance, satisfied them that such was the ease, they should find the issues in favor of the defendant.
Taking the charge as a whole, I see no error in it. Indeed, as it seems to me, if His Honor had had before him, and taken as his guide, the opinion of the Chief-Justice filed in this cause, he could not, more nearly than he did, have presented the course of instruction to the jury, which my brethren say he should have done. In effect, the jury were told to consider the whole evidence and say whether the intestate had, in any way, through his own negligence, contributed to his own injury, but, that if in the conflict of the testimony upon the point they were unable to say with certainty how that was, then, as it was a matter of defence and the burden rested upon the defendant, they should find the issue for the plaintiff.
That there was a conflict in the evidence bearing upon the point, calling for the exercise of a discretion on the part of the jury in passing upon the credibility of the witnesses and the probability of their statements, appears unmistakable to my mind; and yet, if I understand the opinion of the court cor*517rectly, it proceeds upon the ground that the facts of the case were all certainly ascertained and unquestioned before the jury.
It is strange it should be so, yet no question seems so much. involved in uncertainty, growing out of the conflicting decisions with regard to it, as that which has reference to the burden of proof in respect to the plaintiff’s freedom from negligence, in a case such as this — some of the authorities holding that it devolves upon him to allege and affirmatively establish that he was free from negligence contributing to his injury, while others hold that his negligence is a matter of defence, the burden of proving which rests upon the defendant. In this court, until now, it has been an open question; but to my mind it seemed so reasonable and logical that the onus probandi, in such a case, should rest upon tbe defendant, that I could'but hope the court would, whenever the opportunity offered, adopt that view, and not leave it to be any longer a disputed point with us.
The opposite rule strikes me, not only as being illogical and contrary to the rules of good pleading, in that, it requires the plaintiff to aver and prove negative matters, but as losing sight of that reasonable presumption, which the common law always makes, that every person does his duty until the contrary is shown. It is, moreover, in opposition to the very law of our nature, and makes no allowance for that instinct which prompts men, when in hazardous situations, to use care in avoiding injury and preserving their lives.
Two out of the three commentators referred to in the opinion of the Chief-Justice do not hesitate to declare their dissent to such a rule. In Wharton, § 425, after referring to the question as being unsettled by reason of the conflicting decisions upon it, the author remarks that it should be remembered, that as a person is presumed to be careful until the contrary appear, the plaintiff, after having shown the defendant’s negligence, ought to be entitled to rest on this presumption. In Sher. & Redf., § 44, in discussing what should be the true rule in such cases, the authors say, their opinion agrees with that expressed by Duer, *518J., in Jackson v. Hudson River, &c., 5 Duer, 21, where that able jurist held negligence on the part of the plaintiff to be a matter of defence, to be affirmatively proved by the defendant, though it might of course be inferred from the circumstances proved by the plaintiff.
When the plaintiff in this case closed his evidence, he had a perfect prima facie case to go to the jury with. He had given evidence of the defendant’s neglect, and no contributory negligence of the deceased appeared. The logical consequence of such a condition of things was, that the defendant as a wrong-doer should be required to make compensation to the party injured, and if it sought to relieve itself of that obligation by the fact that the deceased had contributed to the injury, it was incumbent on it, as it seems to me, upon every principle of right reasoning and good pleading, to establish that fact by at least a preponderance of testimony; and when after this, the evidence upon the point became contradictory and conflicting, and was left to go to the jury in that condition, I can but think that His Honor did right in reminding the jury that the laboring oar was upon the defendant, whose duty it was to make the matter plain. To do so, was to do nothing more than to tell them that they might make use of, as elements of evidence, that presumption of right conduct which the law always makes, and those instincts which prompt men in their sober senses to self-preservation; and it imposed upon the defendant just that labor in establishing its defence that it did upon the plaintiff in proving the defendant’s negligence in the first instance.
Per Curiam. Venire de novo.