Court Opinion

ID: 9807598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:10:53.370049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:46:10.671421
License: Public Domain

AxleN, J.,
dissenting: I do not concur in the views expressed by the Court, but the opinion has been filed so late in the term that I cannot do more than suggest my reasons for dissenting.
The opinion of the Couid is based on two propositions:
1. That it was not the duty of the engineer t.o keep a lookout in the direction the train was backing, except for the purpose of seeing if there was any obstruction on the track in front of the rear of the train, and consequently the defendants owed no duty to the plaintiff’s intestate, a brakeman, who was between the first and second cars.
*4152. That if such a duty should be imposed there is no evidence that, by the exereise of ordinary care, the dangerous position of the intestate could have been discovered and his death averted. If either position can be sustained, the judgment of nonsuit should be affirmed.
It is noticeable that in the first part of the opinion it is stated that it is not necessary to decide the first proposition, but after a review of a part of the evidence, it was thought best to do so.
I. The authorities agree that it is the duty of an engineer, while running his train, to keep a lookout, and that he and the company he represents are chargeable with what he sees and with all that can be discovered by the exercise of ordinary care. By the term “keeping a lookout,” I understand looking in front when the train is moving forward, and to the rear when it is moving backward.
If there is any difference in the degree of care to be observed in the performance of this duty, dependent on the movement of the train, I would say that greater care should be required when moving backward, as the operation is more dangerous. I do not think that the purpose of requiring the engineer to look to the rear when it is backing is to enable him to see obstructions in front of the train, as stated in the opinion of the Court, but that it is that he may overlook the train and note the signals of the trainmen; and to do this he must observe' their positions.
In this case, the train consisted of an engine, tender, and three cars, and it was backing into a siding for the purpose of leaving the cars.
J. R. "Warren, a witness for the defendant, explains this:
Q. State to his Honor and the jury exactly how it occurred and all about it? A. The train comes there; it has a mountain to come-up, and they were to put those cars on the sidetrack, and Mr. Sigmon was riding the car when he passed the switch, and he put on the first brake on the rear car and he jumped off by the side of me, and he jumped up between the cars and got out of my sight then, and they went down about 30 or 40 feet, and I saw him down under the car, and he rolled out in front of the wheels.
*416The plaintiff’s intestate was setting the brakes in order- that the cars might remain on the siding and in the position desired. Suppose the brakes had not held, was it not the duty of the brakeman to notify the engineer, and, if so, his duty to see?
I do not wish to see a harsh or unreasonable rule imposed on engineers, who are usually prudent, intelligent, and brave; but the position of the brakeman is a very dangerous one, and he should not be left without protection.
If this is a correct view of the relation of the parties, it was the duty of the engineer to look towards the rear of the train, that he might note its condition and might receive signals, and if he failed to look, or if he looked and failed to see what cou'ld have been seen by the exercise of ordinary care, he was negligent.
1. Did he look ? I don’t know, and it is not for me to say. My duty is at an end when I consider the question whether there was any evidence that he did not look. The engineer testified that he was looking west towards the rear of the train.
C. H. Perry, a witness for the plaintiff, described the fall of the deceased, his crying out, etc., and was then asked the following questions:
Q: Which way was the engineer looking when this was going on; what was standing on the other side of this train ? A. There was a train pulling out just as they headed in there; pulling out towards Asheville — a freight train.
Q. What was Mr. Roberts looking at? A. He had his face turned towards the east, towards Asheville, when I noticed him.
Q. Away from this train? A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Sigmon was which way from him? A. He was west.
It is true, he stated on cross-examination that he was not looking at the engineer the instant the deceased fell, but this witness was not a partisan of the plaintiff. It is in evidence that the defendant furnished him a pass to attend the trial, and that he notified witnesses for the defendant to attend.
Again, Mrs. C. H. Perry says:
*417Q. Do you know wbieb way tbe engineer was looking when he fell? A. He was looking east before the accident, but I don’t know which way he was looking when he was under the car.
It seems to me this is some evidence that the engineer was not keeping a lookout.
(2) But suppose he looked, did he fail to observe what a man exercising ordinary care would have discovered? There was one car and a tender between the deceased and the engineer, a distance of perhaps 60 feet. The deceased began crying out about the time he fell, and this continued until the train stopped.
C. H. Perry says:
Q. At that time you say you saw him fall down on the track, did he say anything at first, or did it knock the breath out of him? A. He hollered pretty soon after he fell.
Q. Did he holler the same instant he fell, or a second or two afterwards? A. Yes, a second or two afterwards — about the same time.
Q. I ask you if it was not a second or two after he fell that he hollered, and if his hollering and the stopping of the train was not almost at the same time? A. No, sir; the train did not stop when he fell.
Q. I mean did not the train stop almost as he hollered ? A. As I recollect, the train stopped while he was hollering.
This witness was 65 or 70 yards from the train:
Q. How far were you away? A. About 65 or 70 yards.
Mrs. O. H. Perry testifies that she heard the crying out, and she was asked: “How far away were you? About 65 yards. Did you hear him holler? Yes.”
E. L. Potts, a witness for defendant, said he was 60 yards from the railroad, and heard him.
Dock Bryson said he was 125 feet from the railroad, and heard him.
If two witnesses, who were 65 yards, and another 125 feet distant, heard him, is it unreasonable to say that there is evidence that the engineer, who was within 60 feet, could have *418beard if be bad exercised ordinary care? Next, was there evidence that be could have seen the dangerous position of the deceased ?
The deceased fell between the first and second car. One of bis feet became entangled at the coupling, and be fell across the rail, out between the cars. He was a grown man, and the wheels ran across bis thigh. This admits of the argument that from the thigh to the bead was beyond the rail, approximately 3 feet.
Mrs. C. H. Perry says:
Q. What was be doing; was be moving along? A. He bad bis bands outside ahold of the ends of the cross-ties.
J. R. Warren says:
Q. What position was be in when be fell between the cars? A. He fell right down on bis stomach, and bis bands were catching onto the ends of the cross-ties as be was sliding down in front of the wheels.
Q. Where were bis feet? A. One was down next to the ties, and one was banging somewhere, and be told me it was bung on the air hose, that bis foot was bung on the air hose.
Q. What is the air hose? A. It is to connect the air between the cars; it is the rubber hose.
Q. When be fell, did be fall right across the track? A. Yes, bis bead was out about even with the end of the ties, about 2 feet, I guess, that is, to the end of the ties.
A. L. Roberts, the engineer, testifies:
Q. How far do those cars project over the rail? A. I don’t know; something like 12 or 14 inches.
Q. So if a man’s body projected out 2 feet over the rail there would not be anything in the world to prevent you from seeing him? A. It don’t look like that would be.
S. L. Cabe testifies that be bad worked on the railroad seven or eight years, and was acquainted with the situation at Balsam, and was asked the following questions:
Q. I wish you would state to bis Honor and the jury bow much of a curve there is there on this side-track ? A. The main line comes up straight until you get there to the switch;
*419Tbe Court: That switch was where they were putting the cars in? A. Yes, and then the main line curves south around this way.
The Court: Q. That is coming towards Asheville ? A. Yes, and when the engine went up in here (indicating with motion), you could see down in there plain enough on this curve, and when you get down to the switch there is a curve there, that is, the switch curves oil from the main line like any other switch.
By Counsel: Q. How much does the switch curve? A. Yery little.
Q. State whether or not, at any point along there, he could have seen a man 2 feet over the track at the rear end of the car next to the engine? A. He could have seen him at any point. And the track comes on the south, on the engineer’s side, and he could have seen better from his cab than he could from the sidetrack.
I submit that a fair consideration of this evidence leads to the conclusion that, if true, the engineer could have seen and heard.
(3) If so, the remaining inquiry is: Could he have seen and heard in time to stop the train and avoid killing the deceased, or, rather, is there evidence of this fact? This involves an investigation of the evidence as to the distance the train moved after the deceased fell, the speed of the train, and the distance within which it could he stopped.
(a) How far did the train move after the deceased fell?
C. H. Perry testified:
Q. After he fell, how far did your train go ? A. It seemed to me that it went but a little piece; could not say exactly how far.
Q. Give your hest judgment as to how far it went? A. It went, it seemed to me, probably a car length.
Q. That is your best judgment of it? A. Yes, at the time.
Q. When he fell, what did you see him doing on the track? A. It looked like he was just scrambling along. I don’t know whether his feet were fastened or whether he was just trying to keep out of the front of the car.
*420Q. And it looked like be was trying to keep out of tbe way of tbe wheels? A. Yes.
Q. Well, just state bow be was? A. Tbe best I could see, it just looked like be was trying to keep out of tbe way of tbe wbeel.
Q. How far did tbe car go under those circumstances — you say it went a car length? A. I could not say; it might have been more than that.
Q. That is your judgment, that it went about a car length while be was in that situation? A. Yes, something like that.
It is conceded that a car length is about 30 feet.
(b) What was tbe speed of tbe train? Hock Bryson and O. H. Perry say it was going about “as fast as a man could walk”; J. R. Warren, “3 or 4 miles an hour”; H. C. Ensley, “3 miles an hour.”
A. L. Roberts says when be started in tbe siding be was running from “4 to 6 miles an hour,” and be was then asked:
Q. You mean to tell tbe jury that when you started to back in there it was going 4 to 6 miles an hour? A. Yes; but when be fell off it might not have been going 2 miles an hour.
(c) Within what distance could tbe train have been stopped? S. L. Cabe testified: “Within 4 feet.”
A. L. Roberts testified on cross-examination:
Q. You say if tbe train bad been going from 4' to 6 miles an hour, you could have stopped in 8 or 10 feet, SO' that you could stop tbe train going at 2 miles an hour in what distance? A. In tbe slack of tbe car.
Q. How much slack is there in a car? A. There was 2 feet slack in tbe cars that were coupled together.
Q. How much slack was there in this car? A. Six or 8, maybe 10 inches.
Q. And you could stop1 that one car in 6 inches? A. In 10 or 12 inches.
Q. And tbe others might have rolled on a little further ? A. (No answer.) And on redirect examination:
Q. You say you could stop a train going 2 miles an hour in 10 inches; do you mean with or without slack? A. Without the slack of the ears. With the slack of the cars, it would have taken longer.
*421Q. If that train was going back in there at 2 miles an hour with the slack in, in how far could you stop it ? A. In about 8 feet.
There is therefore evidence that the train ran 30 feet after the deceased fell; that he fell within 60 feet of the engine and in the direction the engineer was required to look; that he began crying out as he fell; that he was heard 65 yards distant; that his head was 2 feet beyond the rail and he was grabbing at the end of the cross-ties; that the car between him and the engine projected over the rail 14 inches; that the train was running at from 2 to 4 miles an hour, and therefore making little noise; that the train could have been stopped in 4 feet at least, and one witness, who was not present but was familiar with the location and trains, swore the engineer could have seen the deceased.
If the car ran 30 feet and he had seen or heard the deceased as he fell, and had stopped his car in 28 feet, when, according to the evidence, it could have been stopped in 4, a life would have been saved.
I agree with the principle laid down by the Court, that it is the duty of the Superior Court judge to decide whether there is evidence, and of this Court upon appeal to review this decision; but we cannot go further.
We cannot weigh the evidence and pass on its sufficiency, and if we do undertake to do so, we usurp the powers of the jury. The duty imposed is well stated by Justice Hoke in Fitzgerald v. R. R., 141 N. C., 534. He says: “It is very generally held that 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 more reasonable probability that the defendant has been guilty of actional negligence, the case cannot be withdrawn from the jury, though the possibility of accident may arise on the evidence. Thus, in Shearman and Redfield on 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 produces evidence *422to rebut the presumption. It has sometimes been held not sufficient for the plaintiff to establish a probability of the defendant’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 evi-deneé.’ ”
I was interested in the eloquent plea of counsel for the plaintiff in behalf of trial by jury, in the course of which he said it was reported that King Alfred, in the olden days, had caused forty-four of the judges to be executed because of their denial of this right to the subject. I would suggest to him that the incident is violative of the principle he advocates, as there is no suggestion that the king gave the judges a trial by jury.
I repeat that I do not know how the fact is, nor I do know what I would do as a juror, but in my opinion there is evidence fit to be submitted to a jury.