Court Opinion

ID: 9812425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:39:51.869664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:58.347315
License: Public Domain

OlaeK, O. L,
dissenting: Stephen Vassor, the plaintiff’s minor son, was injured by the explosion of the engine on defendant’s train, whereby he “lost both feet, one leg being cut off below and the other above the knee, one of his legs being broken in three places; his arm was cut and two holes knocked in his head.” These injuries being caused by an explosion, there is a presumption of negligence, which always arises when the injury is caused by a collision, derailment, or explosion. In such oases, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. The only question, therefore, which arises on this motion to nonsuit is whether the relation of the injured party to the defendant was such that, taking the plaintiff’s evidence to be true and in the aspect most favorable to him, was the defendant liable to plaintiff for the injury caused by its negligence, when it was not a wanton or wilful act ?
The evidence of the injured boy is that, with permission of the conductor of the freight train, he went to Kichmond to take the place of a hand working for the defendant; that not getting the plac.e, he started home the next day on the same train. lie testified: “The conductor said ‘Yes’ when I asked him if I could come back with him. I was to help unload freight and load freight. We had some barrels to unload at Clopton, and me and two brakemen got aboard second car so we could unload them quickly when train got there. The engine exploded not more than ten minutes after *80I got on the car. The engineer and fireman saw me after I got on the train. They were looking at me when I got on.” This evidence must be taken to be true, with the most favorable inferences to be drawn from it. The injured boy was certainly not a trespasser. He was on the car by the express permission of the conductor, the supreme representative of the company on that train. He was there with the tacit consent of the engineer and fireman, and was there under an agreement that he was to help load ,and unload freight. It is immaterial whether he was passenger or employee. The defendant owed him the duty not only to refrain from wil-fully and wantonly injuring him, as in the case of a trespasser, but not to injure him by its negligence. This was the ruling laid down in the rehearing of McNeill v. Railroad, 135 N. C., 718. The plaintiff’s pass, it is there said, “had expired, if it had ever legally existed.” The conductor permitted him to travel in- violation of a statute without any payment of fare or promise to pay; the injury was not caused by any wilful or wanton act, yet the defendant was held liable. Here the conductor also permitted the injured party to ride free, but not illegally nor without pay. The explosion occurred -in Virginia, where it is not shown that free passage was prohibited; besides, the boy, who was so badly injured by the defendant’s negligence, was not riding really free, but was either by agreement paying his way by loading and unloading-freight or was an employee receiving pay for his work by getting transportation. Resides, when the injured man was discharged from the hospital, the defendant’s superintendent gave him a pass home, styling him “an injured employee.” This was a declaration against interest and was erroneously excluded. It should have been submitted to the jury together with the other evidence.