Court Opinion

ID: 9807597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:10:53.363374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:46:10.661561
License: Public Domain

IIoke, J.,
concurring: I concur in tbe result. All of tbe testimony tends to show that tbe deceased fell beneath tbe train *414from a position where bis fall could not possibly have been noted by the engineer, and that he was run over in about two or three seconds from the time that he fell. All of the witnesses except one testified that the distance the train moved was from 6 to 10 feet, and that he was standing some distance off, and that the train moved about a car length, and the witness afterwards qualified this testimony by saying that he could not positively say that the train moved over 10 or 15 feet. All of the testimony tends to show further that the tender and a car loaded with wood were between the engineer and the intestate at the time he fell; that the deceased only gave a cry or two, and that if any part of his person was exposed to view at all it was only his hands about the end of the cross-ties and close to the ground, affording slight if any opportunity to either see or hear him, under any circumstances. I assume that the duty was on the engineer, in so far as consistent with proper attention to his engine, tO' keep an outlook over his train in the direction in which it was moving and to be properly regardful of the safety of employees upon it; but on the facts of this case, considering the point from which the deceased fell, that it could not have been observed by the engineer, the shortness of the time — not more than two seconds — the necessary attention of the engineer to the proper operation of his engine and the noise attendant upon its movement, I am of opinion that this was an excusable accident, and there is no testimony, within the definition of legal evidence, that there was a breach of duty on the part of the engineer or that an actionable wrong has been committed by the defendants.