Court Opinion

ID: 9813004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:53:23.792341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:30.560720
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
dissenting: It was said in Talley v. R. R., 163 N. C., 567, 80 S. E., 44, “that the engineer of a moving train who sees, on the track ahead, a pedestrian who is alive and in the apparent possession of his strength and faculties, the engineer not having information to the 'contrary, is not required to stop his train or even slacken its speed because of such person’s presence on the track. Under the conditions suggested, the engineer may act on the assumption that the pedestrian will use his faculties for his own protection and will leave the track in time to save himself from injury,” a position fully supported by innumerable authorities. See especially Abernathy v. R. R., 164 N. C., 91, 80 S. E., 421.
*118Applying this principle to the facts of the instant case, it seems to me the judgment of nonsuit is correct.
In order to take the case out of the above principle, the plaintiff must show (1) that the deceased was in a position of peril and apparently insensible to danger; (2) that the engineer, by the exercise of ordinary care, could have discovered his plight and stopped the train before reaching him; and (3) that the failure to exercise such care on the part of the engineer was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s intestate’s death. Olegg v. R. R., 132 N. C., 292, 43 S. E., 836; Harrison v. R. R., 204 N. C., 718. The showing on the part of the plaintiff is not sufficient to carry the case to the jury.
BROqdeN, J., concurs in dissent.