Baker v. High Point, Thomasville & Denton Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Baker v. High Point, Thomasville & Denton Railroad

163 S.E. 452, 202 N.C. 478, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 138

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 30, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 163 S.E. 452 (Baker v. High Point, Thomasville & Denton Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. High Point, Thomasville & Denton Railroad, 163 S.E. 452, 202 N.C. 478, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 138 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Beogbbn, <T.

There was evidence tending to establish the negligence of defendant. However, if the plaintiff approached the crossing in the day time, and within a distance of 67 feet therefrom, had an unobstructed vision of the track for over 200 feet, and undertook to cross without looking and listening, he would not be entitled to recover. But the evidence tends to show that the crossing was obstructed by a curve and embankment to the left thereof as plaintiff approached. The testimony was: “Before you can see to your left you are nearly on the *481 track.” Hence it cannot be said that plaintiff is barred of recovery as a matter of law because be gave more attention to the direction where tbe probability of danger was greatest. His conduct under all the circumstances must be tested by the standard of reasonable prudence. Upon this aspect of the case, the following declaration of the Court in Lee v. R. R., 180 N. C., 413, 105 S. E., 15, is pertinent: “One who voluntarily goes on a railroad track, where the view is unobstructed, and fails to look and listen, cannot recover damages for an injury, which would have been avoided if he had done so. The duty to look and listen may be qualified by obstructions and other circumstances, and when these appear the question of contributory negligence is ordinarily for the jury. He is not required to look continuously when he has been misled by the failure of the company to give notice of the approach of its train, or where his attention is rightly directed elsewhere, and he cannot be expected to look in both directions at the same time.”

There is evidence tending to show that after the plaintiff discovered the engine moving on the second track that he attempted, in disregard of his own safety, “to beat the engine to the crossing.” These matters, however, must be submitted to a jury for its determination upon all the facts and circumstances.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Beogbbn, <T.

There was evidence tending to establish the negligence of defendant. However, if the plaintiff approached the crossing in the day time, and within a distance of 67 feet therefrom, had an unobstructed vision of the track for over 200 feet, and undertook to cross without looking and listening, he would not be entitled to recover. But the evidence tends to show that the crossing was obstructed by a curve and embankment to the left thereof as plaintiff approached. The testimony was: “Before you can see to your left you are nearly on the *481 track.” Hence it cannot be said that plaintiff is barred of recovery as a matter of law because be gave more attention to the direction where tbe probability of danger was greatest. His conduct under all the circumstances must be tested by the standard of reasonable prudence. Upon this aspect of the case, the following declaration of the Court in Lee v. R. R., 180 N. C., 413, 105 S. E., 15, is pertinent: “One who voluntarily goes on a railroad track, where the view is unobstructed, and fails to look and listen, cannot recover damages for an injury, which would have been avoided if he had done so. The duty to look and listen may be qualified by obstructions and other circumstances, and when these appear the question of contributory negligence is ordinarily for the jury. He is not required to look continuously when he has been misled by the failure of the company to give notice of the approach of its train, or where his attention is rightly directed elsewhere, and he cannot be expected to look in both directions at the same time.”

There is evidence tending to show that after the plaintiff discovered the engine moving on the second track that he attempted, in disregard of his own safety, “to beat the engine to the crossing.” These matters, however, must be submitted to a jury for its determination upon all the facts and circumstances.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E. 452, 202 N.C. 478, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-high-point-thomasville-denton-railroad-nc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack