Birt v. Southern Ry.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Birt v. Southern Ry.

69 S.E. 233, 87 S.C. 239, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 133

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedNovember 11, 1910

Docket7710

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 69 S.E. 233 (Birt v. Southern Ry.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Birt v. Southern Ry., 69 S.E. 233, 87 S.C. 239, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 133 (S.C. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

1 When there is testimony tending to show damage to property caused by fire communicated by a railroad engine, it is error to grant nonsuit on the ground that there is no evidence oí negligence; in such cases, a prima facie presumption of negligence arises which casts the burden on the railroad corporation to show that its engine was constructed, equipped, and managed with due care. Hutto v. Ry., 81 S. C. 567, 62 S. E. 835, and cases cited.

2 Á complaint which alleges that such fire was negligently set out may be amended during trial, after the evidence has been taken, by striking out the allegation of negligence SO' as to make the action one under Section 2135 of the Code of 1902, which makes every railroad corporation liable for damage caused by fire communicated by its engine (except in the cases specified) without regard to the question of negligence. Brown v. Ry., 83 S. C. 557.

Reversed.

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