Dial v. Southern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Dial v. Southern Railway Co.

101 S.E. 831, 113 S.C. 363, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 11

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 26, 1920

Docket10347

StatusPublished

This text of 101 S.E. 831 (Dial v. Southern Railway Co.) 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

Dial v. Southern Railway Co., 101 S.E. 831, 113 S.C. 363, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 11 (S.C. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice •Watts.

This is an appeal from an order of nonsuit granted by his Honor, County'Judge Whaley. The exceptions, three in number, raise two questions: "

First, did the operation of the train at the time and place in question, constitute such an attractive nuisance as would place upon the respondent the burden of maintaining a switchman at the crossing, or gates, closing the same ?

Second, if the operation of said train did constitute such an attractive nuisance as would place a burden, as above, on the respondent, was there any evidence that the failure to have these protections mentioned operate as a proximate cause of the injury?

It is unnecessary, in. this case, to decide the first question. Under the evidence in the case, no other reference can be drawn than, even if a flagman or gates had been provided, it could not have been reasonably expected to protect the plaintiff’s intestate from the injury which he received. Such a flagman or gates would not have protected the deceased from injury. The deceased was not killed on the *365 crossing, but on the right of way of the railroad near the crossing, and he was not playing on the track, but he broke away from those who had him in charge and ran to and attempted to board a moving train.

The exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice •Watts.

This is an appeal from an order of nonsuit granted by his Honor, County'Judge Whaley. The exceptions, three in number, raise two questions: "

First, did the operation of the train at the time and place in question, constitute such an attractive nuisance as would place upon the respondent the burden of maintaining a switchman at the crossing, or gates, closing the same ?

Second, if the operation of said train did constitute such an attractive nuisance as would place a burden, as above, on the respondent, was there any evidence that the failure to have these protections mentioned operate as a proximate cause of the injury?

It is unnecessary, in. this case, to decide the first question. Under the evidence in the case, no other reference can be drawn than, even if a flagman or gates had been provided, it could not have been reasonably expected to protect the plaintiff’s intestate from the injury which he received. Such a flagman or gates would not have protected the deceased from injury. The deceased was not killed on the *365 crossing, but on the right of way of the railroad near the crossing, and he was not playing on the track, but he broke away from those who had him in charge and ran to and attempted to board a moving train.

The exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 831, 113 S.C. 363, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dial-v-southern-railway-co-sc-1920.