Strickland v. Southern Ry. Co.

93 S.E. 187, 107 S.C. 521, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 178
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJuly 16, 1917
Docket9768
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 187 (Strickland v. Southern Ry. 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
Strickland v. Southern Ry. Co., 93 S.E. 187, 107 S.C. 521, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 178 (S.C. 1917).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

This is an action for death by the wrongful act. The deceased was an engineer running from Savannah, Ga., to Jacksonville, Fla. When the train reached the station in Jacksonville, the engineer, in making an inspection of his engine, found that the drain cock to the air reservoir was stopped up, and took a piece of wire to open it. When the wire was put into the opening of the drain cock, it removed the obstruction, and the contents of liquid and solid matter struck his hand and caused injuries from which it is alleged that the engineer subsequently died. The defendant made a motion for a nonsuit, which was refused, and subsequently *523 made a motion for a directed verdict, which was granted. From the judgment entered thereon this appeal was taken. The verdict was directed on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, that the injury was caused solely by the negligence of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had assumed the risk.

1 The judgment is reversed for the reason that there was evidence from which the jury might have inferred negligence on the part of the defendant. The evidence did not show conclusively as a matter of law that the negligence of the plaintiff was the sole cause of the injury, and the evidence of assumption of risk was not conclusive. It would be manifestly unfair for this Court to discuss the evidence, inasmuch as the case must go back for a new trial. It is a sufficient statement that there was evidence enough to carry the case to the jury, and the order directing a verdict is reversed.

2 The case for appeal has been prepared in utter disregard of the rule, and it is ordered that no costs or disbursements on appeal shall be taxed.

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

Related

Miller, Administrator v. A.C.L.R. Co.
138 S.E. 675 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)
Miller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
138 S.E. 675 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 S.E. 187, 107 S.C. 521, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strickland-v-southern-ry-co-sc-1917.