Court Opinion

ID: 9812565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:41:57.38243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:18.143160
License: Public Domain

Faiecloth:, O. J.,
dissenting. I am unable to hold that the evidence was sufficient to let the ease go to the jury. This question has probably been discussed by every Court in the Union. From those I have seen, the rule seems to be that the evidence should be such as would satisfy the mind of a reasonable man that the defendant was guilty of negligence, and the burden of showing negligence is upon the plaintiff.
In the present case there is not a scintilla of evidence that the steam was unnecessarily let off, or that it was done in a careless manner or recklessly, in disregard of the plaintiff’s rights. Wittowski v. Wasson, 71 N. C., 451; Kahn v. R. Co., 115 N. C., 638. “There is, or may be, in every case a preliminary question for the Judge, not whether there is absolutely no evidence, but whether there is more than a scintilla of evidence upon which a jury can properly proceed to find *261a verdict for tbe party introducing it, upon whom the burden of proof is imposed.” Commissioners v. Clark, 94 U. S., 278. It is well settled, thus: “While negligence is an inference to be drawn from the facts, the existence of the facts themselves must not be leift to conjecture, but facts must be established by evidence which would warrant a reasonable man in inferring negligence.” Railroad v. Clark, 23 L. R. A., 504. The question is not what by possibility might be proved at another trial, but what has been proved in this case.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff was, without reciting it in detail, in substance: That the defendant’s engine was standing on the side-track of defendant’s road, about half way between two street crossings in the town of Warsaw; that the plaintiff drove his team by the engine along the adjacent street to the defendant’s warehouse, unloaded and returned on the same street, and when opposite to the engine the engineer left off some steam which flew in the direction of the horses and frightened them; that they dashed towards the sidewalk, threw the plaintiff out of his wagon, and he was thereby injured.
The defendant’s evidence was in substance: That the engine was in good condition, was at its usual place when not in action; that there were times when it is necessary to turn off steam, whether standing or in motion, to avoid danger to the engine; that the noise was not loud and unnecessary, and that the plaintiff did not have his reins in hand at the time of the accident.
His Honor instructed the jury upon the whole of the evidence to • answer the first issue, “No,” and plaintiff appealed; that is, “Was the plaintiff injured through the negligence of the defendant?”
I think his Honor’s ruling should be affirmed.
Eubches, J. I concur in the dissenting opinion.