Court Opinion

ID: 9807845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:17:25.810161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:30.106075
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.,
dissenting: The defendant asked the Court to instruct the jury “If, by the exercise of reasonable care, the plaintiff’s intestate might have seen the approaching train and escaped from the danger, and *844failed to keep a reasonable lookout, then they must respond to the second issue (contributory negligence) ‘Yes’.” The defendant was entitled to this instruction without the modification added by the Court, which was in effect, ‘ ‘Provided defendant had not been negligent. ” Whether the defendant had been negligent or not did not affect this proposition, that, if the plaintiff’s intestate, by reasonable care, might have escaped the danger, he was guilty of negligence. The defendant had a right to have that issue fairly put to the jury and it was in no wise dependent upon the defendant’s being negligent or not. If, notwithstanding the contributory negligence, the defendant with proper care, might have avoided the injury, is the inquiry presented by the 3rd issue, and the result upon all the issues submitted would then be for the Court. The defendant was seridusly prejudiced by this ruling, which was in effect that the plaintiff’s intestate could not be guilty of contributory negligence if the defendant was negligent, and reduced the three issues in effect to one, i. e. Was the defendant negligent? Whereas the defendant was entitled to the substantive finding whether there was contributory negligence. If there was, and the defendant was negligent, there could be no recovery unless, notwithstanding the contributory negligence of the plaintiff’s intestate and subsequent thereto, the defendant could have avoided the consequence thereof. Pickett v. Railroad, 117 N. C., 616. The court, in effect, told the jury that, though the plaintiff’s intestate by the exercise of reasonable care might have seen the approaching train and escaped in jury and did not so escape because he failed to keep a reasonable lookout, he could not be guilty of contributory negligence if the defendant had been negligent. The jury, therefore, were forced to respond “No” to this *845issue, if they found that the defendant had been negligent, whereas, if the defendant had been negligent and the plaintiff’s intestate had been guilty of contributory negligence, there could be no recovery unless there had been subsequent negligence on the part of the defendant. In the present case the jury did not find upon that issue at all. The only defence to such a charge is that no one can be guilty of contributory negligence on a railroad track at night — a position that has never yet been maintained in any decision of any court. In Lloyd v. R. R. Co., 118 N. C., 1010, it was admitted, and the opinion was based on the fact that the plaintiff’s intestate was guilty of contributory negligence, but it was held that, notwithstanding that, the plaintiff could recover, if the defendant was guilty of the continuing and therefore subsequent negligence of failing to have a head-light which might have enabled it to avoid the killing. In the present case the defendant was entitled to the instruction it asked, and upon it the jury, upon the uncontradicted testimony, would doubtless have found that there was contributory negligence. How they would have found upon the third issue, as to a subsequent or continuing negligence, we do not know, for the case was made to turn entirely upon the question whether there was negligence on the part of the defendant, the court instructing in effect, that, if there was such, the plaintiff’s intestate, though he might have escaped iujury by the exercise of reasonable care, could not be guilty of contributory negligence. The other case relied on to support this proposition is Stanly v. Railroad, 120 N. C., 514, which went upon the ground as to what was contributory negligence, and held that it was error to say that it was Such negligence to walk thoughtlessly and recklessly along the track, when by using his senses the plaintiff might have seen and heard *846the train goming, since there was evidence that he was put off his guard by the train not having a light in front. But every case must be read in connection with the facts. There, the plaintiff ‘ ‘was walking along the track commonly used by the public between Durham and East Durham as a walking way;” he was looking in the direction the train was coming from, and it was held that being put off his guard by the absence of a light in front he was not guilty of contributory negligence in not having kept a strict lookout. That case goes to the very verge, but it is very far from sustaining the proposition that at night time no one can be guilty of contributory negligence on a railroad track, if the defendant has been negligent, nor that (as in this case) at a place with six tracks, which is not “habitually used as a walking path,” but which is constantly used by the railroad companies night and day, a party who steps backwards on one of those tracks and is run over by a train rolling at the rate of 3 to 4 miles an hour, with its hell ringing, cannot be guilty of contributory negligence. There was uncontradicted evidence that the bell on the train (of only three cars) was constantly tolled, and the great weight of evidence was that there were lights besides on the front end. Whether, notwithstanding such negligence of the plaintiff’s intestate, the defendant was liable by reason of its subsequent or continuing negligence is the third issue, and upon that there has been no finding.
The naked proposition charged below was: In the night time, no person can be guilty of contributory negligence on a railroad track, if the defendant is guilty of negligence.
This proposition is new, but it is clearly presented. It is not sustained by any precedent. Can there be any good and just reason found to support it?
*847This is not the case of crossing the track when the ordinary duty of looking and listening is condoned by there being no light on the approaching train, as in Mayes v. Railroad, 119 N. C., 758 and Russell v. Railroad, 118 N. C., 1098; but, here, the intestate visited the station of the defendant where he knew there were six tracks with trains constantly coming and going, and it was his duty to exercise ordinary care at least, and to stand between the tracks and not to take his stand upon one of the tracks, and especially not to take his stand thereon without reasonable care, without any lookout, and with his back to a train which was at that very moment approaching, ringing its bell as it very slowly rolled on. This certainly was contributory negligence, the jury should not have been told that it became not contributory negligence if the defendant was negligent.
The defendant asked the court to charge that “the place where the injury was done was known to the plaintiff’s intestate to be a place of danger and it was his duty to keep a reasonable lookout when he went on the tracks, for approaching trains, and if he failed to do so it was contributory negligence.” This surely the defendant was enttiled to, leaving the question whether the defendant was nevertheless liable by reason of its continuing or subsequent negligence to the finding and charge upon the third issue, but his Honor again refused, by adding in effect that the plaintiff’s intestate, even under those circumstances, could not be guilty of contributory negligence unless the defendant was found not negligent itself — thus making the case turn solely upon the one issue of the defendant’s negligence, and putting the burden on the defendant to prove it was not negligent too, whereas the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the negligence of the defendant.
*848The defendant further asked the Court to instruct the jury that “It was the duty of the plaintiff’s intestate to keep a reasonable lookout when he stepped upon the track, and if he failed to do so and the agents of the defendant gave notice of the approach of the train by the lights and bell and signalman, there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, and the jury should respond to the first issue “No” and to the second issue “Yes.” The court refused to give this without the proviso added (as before charged) that there mast have been ‘ ‘a white light displayed on the front of the leading car and a flagman in a conspicuous place thereon.” There was a vast preponderance of evidence that there was a flagman on the top of the advancing car, and near the front end, with two lights in his hand, but the jury were cut off from all benefit of this evidence by the oft repeated declaration of the court that the defendant was negligent if there was not “a light on the front of the advancing car and a signalman in a conspicuous place thereon,” and that if the defendant was negligent in that regard no conduct of the plaintiff’s intestate could make him guilty of contributory negligence. There was no evidence that Purnell would not have gone on the track but for the absence of lights, and the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that. Deans v. Railroad, 107 N. C., 686; Rigler v. R. R. Co., 94 N. C., 604; Parker v. Railroad, 86 N. C., 221, bottom of page 227. Troy v. Railroad, 99 N. C., 298, is exactly in point. There, the accident occurred at night and the court below charged (p. 302): “Had the intestate used his senses he might have heard or seen the coming train. It' he omitted to do so and walked thoughtlessly and carelessly on the track, he was guilty of culpable negligence and contributed to his own injury,” and on appeal *849this Court said ‘ ‘the charge of the court was given with care and stated the law fully and fairly.” In the present case, deceased could see the tramp on top of a car, two cars length away, and on another track. It was his own negligence that he did not see this car within ten feet of him, but instead stepped on the track with his back to the approaching car. The second and third issues of the present case were in Troy’s case included in the second issue, and, hence, the conclusion of the instruction which would have been contradictory to the charge if there had been a third issue. That case settles that, though an engine is run at night without a headlight,' without sounding whistle or ringing the bell, a person getting on the track without due care is guilty of contributory negligence.
The defendant further asked the court to charge the jury that “If the noise of the Atlantic Coast Line train was so great that it prevented the plaintiff’s intestate from hearing the approach of the defendant’s train, the plaintiff’s intestate should have used additional care and diligence in looking for the approaching train, and his failure to do so is negligence, and the jury should find the second issue “Yes”. The court again charged in effect that the plaintiff’s intestate could not possibly be guilty of contributory negligence, if the defendant was negligent, by adding, ‘ ‘'provided, there was a light on the front end of the advancing train and a signal man in a conspicuous place thereon.” Though the light might be there and the bell was ringing and the train moving slowly, the plaintiff’s intestate could not be guilty of negligence, if that signal man was not there and in a conspicuous place. This is what the court told *850the jury by making the instruction depend upon that proviso.
The defendant further asked the Court to instruct the jury that “if the plaintiff’s intestate went under the shed to watch a tramp steal a ride on the Atlantic Coast Line train, and while so watching the tramp backed on the track on which the defendant’s train was backing, and the jury are satisfied the defendant could not have avoided running into him, for the reason that the defendant cound not stop its train in time to have avoided the injury, then you will answer the first issue “No” and the second issue “Yes.” There was plenary evidence to that state of facts, yet this prayer was unqualifiedly refused. The company had the right, even if its agent had seen Purnell in time, to assume that he would get off the track. Meredith v. Railroad, 108 N. C., 616; High v. Railroad, 112 N. C., 385; Deans v. Railroad, supra; Daily v. Railroad, 106 N. C., 301; McAdoo v. Railroad, 105 N. C., 140.
The evidence was uncontradicted as to these facts: that the plaintiff’s intestate went to the station, where there were six tracks constantly in use, to escort a tramp to steal a ride on a train going South, and was actively aiding him by preventing by-standers from making a noise which would cause his detection, and while doing so, and as the train was pulling out, he stepped backwards upon the track of the defendant’s road and was struck from behind by a shifting train of three cars, moving at the rate of three or four miles an hour, with the bell being constantly rung, the whistle not being sounded because forbidden by a town ordinance. These facts were not controverted.
By a very great preponderance of evidence it was shown that there was a brakeman near the front end of *851the advancing car with a red light and a white light in his hand. There was some evidence tending to show that there was no light on top of the train It was also in evidence that the conductor was walking along by the side of the train with a lantern in his hand, and that the plaintiff’s intestate stepped backwards on the track so near the front of the moving train that it was impossible to stop it in time to save him. But upon these facts and phases of the question, the court constantly instructed the jury, time and again, that the plaintiff’s intestate could not by any want of care he guilty of contributory negligence if the defendant ‘ ‘failed to have a light on the front end of the leading car and a signalman in a conspicuous place thereon.”,
There is no precedent that under such surroundings a person cannot make himself guilty of contributory negligence if the defendant is also negligent. Pickett’s case and Lloyd’s case were as to the duty to helpless persons subsequent to their contributory negligence. In Mays’ case and Stanly’s case, the track was used for customary purposes and no signal was given. In this case, the track was not a thoroughfare and the bell was constantly rung, the whistle being forbidden to be used by a town ordinance.
This would be hard measure to mete out to railroad companies. They are entitled to the unrestricted use of their tracks. They are chartered for that purpose. They are not insurers of the safety of every individual who sees fit to place himself on their tracks at the same time they are in actual use. If the company is negligent, a person who is injured cannot recover, notwithstanding the defendant’s negligence, if he could have avoided the injury therefrom, and failed to do so by his own negligence. Meredith v. Coal & Iron Co., 99 N. C., *852576; Farmer v. Railroad, 88 N. C., 564. The only exception to this is where the defendant by reasonable care could have subsequently avoided the accident, notwithstanding the negligence of the party injured. Whether that was the case here is a fact not passed upon by the jury, upon the instructions which were, in effect, that if the- defendant was negligent the plaintiff’s intestate could not have contributed to the injury by his own negligence. Surely in this'there was error.