Court Opinion

ID: 9811779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:28:15.357484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:22.455534
License: Public Domain

Clark, C. J.,
concurs in the opinion of Allen, J., and further says: Any collision between a train and a vehicle of any kind at a crossing is prima facie negligence on the part of the company. The public have a right to use their roads, and the right of the railroad to cross is in subordination thereto. The population of the country is increasing steadily, and in addition to the ordinary vehicles there are now more than 100,000 automobiles and motor trucks licensed by this State, besides a large number from other States passing through this State. It is not reasonable to expect that this immense volume of business can cross and recross the railroad tracks of this State without frequent loss of life or personal injuries. It is therefore negligence on the part of the railroad not to abolish all grade grossings and to make their crossings of public roads in every instance either above or below the surface except when for sufficient cause the Corporation Commission may authorize gates and a tender at exceptional crossings.
Whenever death or personal injuries occur at a crossing it is prima facie due to the negligence of the railroad company in crossing the public road upon the same grade. The burden should be upon the company *224to prove that notwithstanding its negligence in maintaining a grade crossing, the death or injury would not have occurred but for the conduct of the party killed or injured.
Throughout Europe grade crossings are forbidden, and they have been abolished in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and some other States. The U. S. Supreme Court has held that any State can require this to be done at the expense of the corporation. Our own statute, Rev., 1097 (2), confers upon the Corporation Commission power “to require the raising or lowering of a track at any crossing where deemed necessary.” This was reenacted and emphasized, Laws 1907, ch. 469, sec. 1 (c).
The laws and the courts are not solely for the protection of property rights, but for the enforcement as well of the constitutional guarantee of the protection of life and limb.
This Court accordingly held, in Greenlee v. R. R., 122 N. C., 977, and Troxler v. R. R., 124 N. C., 189, that the absence of automatic car couplers was negligence per se, and hence_ an irrebuttable presumption. This negligence has now been made punishable by act of Congress, 3 U. S. Compiled Statutes, 3174.
This Court made a similar ruling as to the failure to adopt a “block system.” Stewart v. R. R., 137 N. C., 687, which was reiterated in the same case, 141 N. C., 253, and such system is now required by statute. Laws 1907, ch. 469, sec. 1 (b). There are other similar decisions of this Court as to other matters involving exposure to unnecessary dangers. The longer retention of grade crossings should be on the same footing as the lack of car couplers and block systems. As Lord Chancellor Erskme observed, when at the bar, “Morality comes in the cold abstract from the pulpit, but men smart practically under its lessons when juries and judges are the teachers.”
The General Assembly can make the abolition of grade crossings by railroads imperative instead of leaving it, as now, unexercised in the discretion of the Corporation Commission, and can place the cost of doing so upon the corporations, whose duty it is to remove them. R. R. v. Minn., 208 U. S., 583, cited R. R. v. Goldsboro, 155 N. C., 362. In the meantime, like any other collision, or a derailment, the act itself is prima facie negligence on the part of the railroad company. Marcom v. R. R., 126 N. C., 200.
This matter has heretofore been called to the public attention in Cooper v. R. R., 140 N. C., 228-9; Wilson v. R. R., 142 N. C., 348-9; Gerringer v. R. R., 146 N. C., 35-37; R. R. v. Goldsboro, 155 N. C., 360-362, 364 (affirmed on writ of error, 232 U. S., 548); McMillan v. R. R., 172 N. C., 857-860 (where the matter is fully discussed with "full citation of authorities), and Borden v. R. R., 175 N. C., 179.