Court Opinion

ID: 9811375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:19:02.176304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:14.655294
License: Public Domain

Clark, C. J.,
dissenting: The plaintiff’s intestate was killed by a shifting engine running backwards with its tender, without ringing the bell or blowing the whistle, and without any lookout on the front of the *161tender as it was running back. Tbe jury found tbat there was evidence of negligence on tbe part of tbe defendant, and tbe judge sustained tbat view. Tbe defendant bas abandoned all tbe exceptions except tbe motion for nonsuit.
Tbe evidence is tbat tbe defendant’s intestate left tbe station at Chad-bourn, going borne along tbe defendant’s track, wbicb bad been used by tbe public as a walkway for fifteen or twenty years. There was no train expected at tbe time to go in tbe direction tbat tbe deceased was going, and in fact no train went in tbat direction at tbat time. Soon after be left, a heavy freight train came in on tbe main line with a long train of cars making a great noise, and to avoid this be stepped on tbe side-track on tbe west side of tbe main line, wbicb bad no train on it, and while walking along this sidetrack in tbe rain, and under tbe trees •growing within a few feet of tbe track, and while defendant’s freight engine was opposite him, making a great amount of noise, tbe defendant detached an engine and tender from tbe passenger train which was on a side-track east of tbe main track, facing in tbe opposite direction, ran it up to tbe station, and then backed tbat engine and tender on tbe west side-track where tbe plaintiff’s intestate was walking, and without giving any warning by ringing tbe bell or blowing tbe whistle and without keeping a lookout and without having any person stationed on tbe end of tbe backing tender to keep a proper lookout, ran over tbe plaintiff’s intestate and instantly killed him. Tbe defendant’s engine and tender were making practically no noise, slipping along at a low rate of speed not exceeding 6 or 8 miles an hour, and could have been stopped within 10 feet.
This is a summary of tbe evidence. What is there' in this evidence tbat licensed tbe defendant to kill Noah Nobles without any liability on its part? Tbe defendant’s track bad long been used as a public walkway. Nobles in passing tbe defendant’s switch on tbe side-track saw tbat it was closed; tbe heavy freight train was on tbe main track; tbe passenger train beaded tbe other way was on tbe east side-track; and there was nothing to put him on notice tbat there would be any train coming on tbe west side-track on wbicb be was walking. Tbe defendant’s train gave tbe intestate no notice by ringing tbe bell or blowing tbe whistle, and tbe engineer on tbe shifting train must have been negligent or be could have seen tbe defendant on tbe track in time to avoid killing him, for tbe evidence is tbat be could have stopped bis train within 10 feet. He evidently was not looking in tbe direction in wbicb tbe engine and tender were backing, and be bad no outlook there, nor did be ring tbe bell or blow tbe whistle. It would be difficult to find a case where tbe negligence was greater than tbat shown by tbe defendant in taking tbe life of Noah Nobles on this occasion. Had tbe backing *162train under these circumstances run over a pig or a cow there could be no question as to the liability of the defendant for such negligence.
There was nothing to require the intestate to “look and listen.” He was not crossing the track. There was no train to come on the sidetrack where he was. He saw both trains that were there and stepped off the main track upon the side-track to the west. He knew the passenger train was on the side-track east of the main track. It was the unusual movement of shifting an engine and tender that was at the head of the mail train on the east side-track across the main track where the freight 'train was and then unexpectedly running it backwards on the west side-track without signal, without a lookout, and killing the intestate because the engineer did not see the intestate when he should have seen him or should have given him notice, that caused the death of 'the intestate. All this constituted negligence on the part of the defendant, and if in any way there was negligence on the part of the intéstate to exculpate this negligence on the part of the defendant, the burden was on the defendant to allege and prove it.
The authorities agree that it is the duty of the engineer while running his train to keep a lookout, and that the company is liable for any injury which he could have seen and avoided by a proper lookout.Greater care should be required when the engine and tender or train are moving backward, as the operation is more dangerous.
As was well said by Hoke, J., in Fitzgerald v. R. R., 141 N. C., 534: “Direct evidence of negligence is not required, but the same may be inferred from facts and attendant circumstances, and it is well established that if the facts proved establish the reasonable probability that the defendant has been guilty of actionable negligence, the case cannot be withdrawn from the jury, though the possibility of accident may arise on the evidence.”
In Sherman and Redfield Negligence, sec. 58, it is said: “The plaintiff is not bound to prove more than enough to raise a fair presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant and of resulting injury to himself. Having done this, he is entitled to recover unless the defendant produce evidence to rebut the presumption. It has sometimes been held not sufficient for the plaintiff to establish a probability of the de- . fendant’s default, but this is going too far. If the facts proved render it probable that the defendant violated its duty, it is for the jury to decide whether it did so or not. To hold otherwise would be to deny the value of circumstantial evidence.”
The plaintiff was walking along the side-track where people had been accustomed to walk for fifteen or twenty years, as the defendant knew. There was no reason to expect any train to come on the side-track at that time, and none came. An engine and tender were detached from *163a train on the east side-track, run down to tbe station beyond the freight train which was on the main track, and were unexpectedly backed on the west side-track where the plaintiff’s intestate was walking, and run backwards without any signal, by bell or whistle, to those who might be expected to be walking there, without any outlook on the rear end as the train was backing, and evidently without any outlook on the part of the engineer in the direction in which he was going, for the evidence is that his engine and tender could have been stopped in 10 feet. If he saw the defendant thus walking along unconsciously in the rain and deafened by the noise of the freight engine, while his own engine was making no noise, he was criminally liable for killing the intestate. If he did not see him and give notice, it was negligence for which the defendant is liable unless contributory negligence is alleged and proven as required by our statute.
In a very recent case, Meroney v. R. R., 165 N. C., 611, it was held: “It is negligence per se for the émployees on a railroad freight train to back its train on a side-track without some one on the front to give notice of its approach and to signal threatened danger to pedestrians, and it is actionable when injury is thereby caused.” This case cites, among many others, Purnell v. R. R., 122 N. C., 832, where the engine was pushing backward a train of box cars. It .also cites among other cases to same purport Pharr v. R. R., 119 N. C., 756; Bradley v. R. R., 126 N. C., 741; Jeffries v. R. R., 129 N. C., 236; Lassiter v. R. R., 133 N. C., 244, and adds: “In Beck v. R. R., 146 N. C., 458, it was held that the Court had over and over again declared that to run an engine suddenly backward without warning or signals, or some one on the rear of the train to give notice, was culpable negligence.”
Upon all the evidence it would seem not only that there was evidence sufficient to go to the jury, but the conclusion is unescapable that the death of Noah Nobles was caused by the negligence of the defendant.