Court Opinion

ID: 9811106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:09:18.363109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:04.655275
License: Public Domain

Clark, C. J.,
dissenting: The plaintiff’s intestate was killed while on duty as a fireman on the second engine of a double-header train. He was 21 years of age, and the sole support of his mother and five small brothers and sisters. He was killed in the derailment of the engine, which is prima facie proof of negligence on the part of the company, and it was error to enter a nonsuit if the evidence upon the most favorable aspect thereof, or with the inferences which could be drawn therefrom by a jury, did not as a matter of law rebut the presumption of negligence.
In Marcom v. R. R., 126 N. C., 200, it was held: “Where the derailment of the engine resulted in the death of the intestate, a fireman in the employment of the defendant, a prima facie ease of negligence is to be inferred, and the burden is thrown upon the defendant to disprove negligence on its part.” This has been cited and approved in numerous cases cited at the end of that case in the Anno. Ed., and more recently in Ware v. R. R., 175 N. C., 508; and in Wallace v. Power Co., 176 N. C., *87562. The same principle is approved, 29 Cyc., 599; L. R. A., 1917, E, 143n, and 213n, and ibid., 123n, and Battle v. Lumber Co., 179 N. C., 112. Rev., 2645, also makes killing the bull presumptively a negligent act.
The train was going east and the death was caused by the derailment of the engine upon a straight track about three or four hundred yards east of where the train bad cleared a little cut, and was caused by the train running over a large bull. The bull and cow were grazing on the north side of the track when first discovered by the fireman on the front engine; the cow was then going in the direction of the track. The fireman saw the cow and the bull as soon as the train came out of the cut. The cow was then going towards the track and crossed it. The fireman seeing that the cow bad crossed in safety went to the other side and saw the bull look up and going straight towards the track, where the train struck him, causing the wreck.
Tbe deceased was caught between the cab in which be was riding and the tender containing the coal and water and was burned by steam escaping from the boiler — a most painful and horrible death.
It is also in evidence that the train was running 15 miles an hour, and though there was evidence that the train could not have been stopped in time to avoid the collision, it has been held by this Court that the time within which a train can be stopped is a matter of which the jury may take cognizance as a matter of everyday observation.
However, the negligence of the defendant does not depend upon failure to stop the train, but when the cow was seen 400 yards off in a few feet - 15 or 20 steps from the track, and immediately afterwards the bull was seen following her, it was for the jury to say whether it was not negligence to fail to make him quicken bis steps, or to divert him from crossing, by giving frequent blasts of the whistle and turning off the exhaust steam. On the contrary, it was in evidence by defendant’s employees that no precaution was taken to prevent a collision with this big, heavy animal, either by slackening speed or blowing the whistle or turning off the exhaust steam, by which means the jury might have found that the animal could have been hastened when passing the track, or diverted from so doing.
There being a presumption of negligence from the derailment, which does not happen without a cause, it devolved upon the defendant to rebut this presumption, and prevent the frightful death which the young fireman suffered by being scalded to death by the steam while being crushed between the cab and the tender.
Bradshaw, the fireman on the front engine, testified that the bull was struck by the train three or four hundred yards east of the “White” cut, on a clear straight track, and without any intervening obstacles to obstruct the view of the engineer and fireman on the engine in front. And *88that be actually saw both animals starting towards the track when the train was about 400 yards away, and they were then 15 or 20 steps from the track. He further testified that no signal or warning was given.
Captain L. E. Perry, the conductor in charge of the train, testified that no stock signal was sounded and no warning given. When asked what was the duty of the engineer when be observes cattle on the track, or about to go on the track, be replied that it was bis duty to use all means in bis power to keep the train from striking the cattle, and that they usually give what is called the stock signal, and also open the cylinder cocks (i. e., turn on the exhaust steam) and scare them, by that means and by bis whistle. J. A. Cook, another employee of the defendant, testified that the method used for frightening livestock away was by blowing whistles, short, quick, loud blows.
This Court has often held that where the train is running upon a straight part of the roadbed in daytime, and cattle feeding near and crossing the road are actually billed by the locomotive it is negligence if the speed of the train was not lessened nor the usual mode of driving off stock by blowing the whistle and turning on the exhaust steam was not resorted to. Snowden v. R. R., 163 N. C., 33; Hines v. R. R., 156 N. C., 222; Ramsbottom v. R. R., 138 N. C., 839; Moore v. Electric Co., 136 N. C., 554; Wilson v. R. R., 90 N. C., 69; Laws v. R. R., 52 N. C., 468; Aycock v. R. R., 51 N. C., 231.
Moreover, in this case the plaintiff’s intestate riding upon the second engine, and having no control whatever over the movements of the train, was entitled to the same protection under the law as a passenger.
The evidence is that the animal was seen by the fireman from the train when it was 300 or 400 yards distant, and on a nonsuit the latter figure must be taken, and by the same rule the evidence that the bull was 15 or 20 steps from the track when be started across, running, must be taken at 15 steps. By proper and prompt use of the whistle be certainly could have been hastened up to run 15 steps while the train was running 400 yards.
It is argued that there was a slight curve and the engineer could not from bis side of the cab have seen the animals, but there is evidence that the fireman did see them, and furthermore, in Arrowood v. R. R., 126 N. C., 631, where this very objection is raised, the road was "winding (and here it was nearly straight and a full view clear ahead), and the Court said, as to the duty of keeping a lookout: “On a straight track, the careful lookout of the engineer would ordinarily be sufficient, but on a winding mountain track, turning first to the right, then to the left, if the engineer could not see the track wben the engine turned to the left, then it was bis duty to have the fireman to look out forward on that side. Tbe duty of keeping the lookout is on the defendant. If it *89can keep a proper lookout by means of the engineer alone, well and good. If by any reason a proper lookout cannot be kept without the aid of the fireman, be should also be used. If by reason of their duties, either the fireman or the engineer, or both, are so hindered that a proper lookout cannot be kept, then it is the duty of the defendant, at such places on its road, to have a third man employed for that indispensable duty. In Pickett v. R. R., 117 N. C., 634; Lloyd v. R. R., 118 N. C., 1012, and a long line of similar cases, it is held that it is the duty of the defendant to keep a proper lookout. It is not held anywhere that such lookout as the engineer may be incidentally able to give will relieve the company, if that lookout is not a proper lookout.” This case has been often cited. See Anno. Ed.
There is a very widespread and steadily growing consensus of opinion that the simplest justice requires that when an employee is killed, or injured, while in the discharge of bis duties in a dangerous employment like this, and when there is an entire absence, as in this case, of any negligence whatever on bis part, that the loss should be taxed against the great industry which be is serving, and not fall solely upon those dependent upon him. For this reason “Employees’ Compensation Acts” have been enacted in nearly all the States, requiring compensation to be paid by the employing company even though the employee was negligent. Under the Federal Government, and in this State the statute now provides that even if the employee concurs in the negligence which caused bis death or injury, this is not a complete defense, but the loss shall be prorated in proportion to the negligence of the employer and employee. Here there was no contributory negligence.
The derailment being of itself prima facie negligence, and the burden being upon the defendant to rebut it, the fact that the two cattle were seen 400 yards off when the freight train was moving only 15 miles an hour, that the cow was then seen moving towards the track, and that her companion would naturally be expected to follow, and could with proper outlook have been seen to do so, and when, after a short delay in further observation, be was seen to be doing so, it was evidence of negligence that this latter observation was not made sooner, and that the whistle or steam exhaust was not used to hasten bis crossing or to turn him aside. Certainly there was no evidence whatever to rebut the double presumption of negligence arising from the derailment, and under Rev., 1645.
It took the train, running 15 miles an hour, nearly a full minute or 60 seconds to make the 400 yards before it overtook this animal, who would hardly have taken as long a time as that to make the 15 or 20 steps from bis position to the point on the track where the train struck *90Him, if Ms steps had been hastened by sharp blows of. the whistle repeatedly given, and the exhaust of steam.
Certainly this much effort ought to have been made to save the life of a human being upon whom a family was dependent, and to save him from the excruciating agonies of being scalded by escaping steam. The jury at least should have had opportunity to pass upon the question whether the presumption of negligence raised by the fact of the derailment was rebutted.
Hoke, J., concurs in this dissenting opinion.