Messrs. Henry E. Davis, and DuRant Sneeden, for appellant, cite: As to Circuit Judge directing verdict for railroadcompany in grade crossing collision: 94 S.C. 143; 77 S.E., 868; 153 S.C. 339; 150 S.E., 769; 140 S.C. 260; 138 S.E., 803; 141 S.C. 238; 139 S.E., 459; 145 S.C. 41; 142 S.E., 801. Construction placed on statute by SupremeCourt should govern: 265 U.S. 30; 68 L.Ed., 885; 17 L.Ed., 261; 241 U.S. 419; 60 L.Ed., 1072; 249 U.S. 389; 63 L.Ed., 662; 254 U.S. 361; 65 L.Ed., 304; 263 U.S. 250; 68 L.Ed., 290; 276 U.S. 567; 72 L.Ed., 703; 238 U.S. 446; 59 L.Ed., 1400; 164 U.S. 403; 41 L.Ed., 489; 220 U.S. 61; 226 U.S. 192; 57 L.Ed., 184. Failure to give crossing signals negligence per se: 47 S.C. 375; 25 S.E., 272; 106 S.C. 123; 90 S.E., 260; 108 S.C. 390; 95 S.E., 64; 138 S.C. 82; 136 S.E., 67. Failureto give signal presumed to be proximate cause of collision: 47 S.C. 375; 25 S.E., 272; 63 S.C. 532; 41 S.E., 808; 84 S.C. 125; 65 S.C. 1031; 115 S.C. 115; 104 S.E., 541; 140 S.C. 123; 141 S.C. 238; 139 S.E., 459; 145 S.C. 41; 142 S.E., 801; 153 S.C. 339; 150 S.E., 769. Where only one witness fails to hear signals question forjury: 106 S.C. 123; 90 S.E., 260; 145 S.C. 41; 142 S.E., 801; 91 S.C. 201; 74 S.E., 473; 140 S.C. 123. As toconstitutionality of crossing statute: 153 S.C. 339; 150 S.E., 769; 141 S.C. 238; 139 S.E., 459; 144 S.C. 164; 142 S.E., 336; 145 S.C. 41; 145 S.E., 801; 279 U.S. 639; 73 L.Ed., 884; 241 U.S. 79; 60 L.Ed., 899; 219 U.S. 219; 55 L.Ed., 191; 261 S.W. 677. Proximate cause is not afact which is subject to inference or presumption: 271 U.S. 472; 70 L.Ed., 1041; 247 U.S. 367; 62 L.Ed., 1167; 179 U.S. 658; 45 L.Ed., 361; 278 U.S. 116. Must showomission of signals was proximate cause of injury: 33 Cyc., 1045; 40 So., 60; 16 S.C. 457; 34 P., 286; 54 N.E., 814; 122 A., 330; 77 N.E., 151; 61 S.E., 748; 116 N.W., 249; 152 S.W. 815; 51 So., 340; 108 N.E., 144; 54 Fed.
And to prevent that result the defendant may show that, notwithstanding the failure to give the signals, the plaintiff knew of the approach of the train in time to avoid the collision, for the object of requiring the signals is to give notice of the approach of the train. Edwards v. Railway, 63 S.C. 271; 41 S.E., 458. Bishop v. Railway, 63 S.C. 532; 41 S.E., 808. Nohrden v. Railway, 59 S.C. 99; 37 S.E., 228; 82 Am. St. Rep., 826."
Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Messrs. N.B. Barnwell and Frank G. Tompkins, for appellant, cite: Failure to observe statute is negligence per se: 44 C.J., 720; 141 S.C. 238; 139 S.E., 459; 145 S.C. 41; 142 S.E., 801; 153 S.C. 339; 150 S.E., 769; 140 S.C. 260; 138 S.E., 803. As to compensatory damages: 142 S.C. 125; 140 S.E., 443; 91 S.C. 507; 75 S.E., 45; 85 S.C. 463; 67 S.E., 568; 132 S.C. 212; 128 S.E., 423. As to contributory negligence: 73 S.C. 481; 53 S.E., 968; 56 S.C. 91; 34 S.E., 16; 142 S.C. 492; 141 S.E., 90. Duty of traveler approaching a crossing: 67 S.C. 347; 45 S.E., 18; 63 S.C. 532; 41 S.E., 808; 121 S.C. 394; 114 S.E., 500; 14 R.C.L., 795; 119 S.C. 134; 112 S.E., 78; 66 S.C. 442; 45 S.E., 8. Messrs. J.D.E. Meyer, Stoney Crosland and J.C.Long, for respondent, cite: Actionable negligence to block publicstreet or highway: 114 S.C. 262; 140 S.C. 171; 44 S.C. L., 232; 70 Am. Dec., 219; 107 S.C. 130; 92 S.E., 191; 127 S.C. 542; 112 S.C. 309; 151 S.C. 459; 127 S.C. 541; 122 S.C. 17; 145 S.C. 41; 101 S.C. 409; 45 S.C. 181; 61 S.C. 404; 72 S.C. 1; 77 S.C. 161. Duty of railroad togive crossing signal: 140 S.C. 123; 106 S.C. 131; 90 S.E., 260; 121 S.C. 401; 114 S.C. 500; 243 U.S. 308; 61 L.Ed., 740; 63 Fed., 532; 11 C.C.A., 338; 87 S.C. 328; 25 S.C. 61. As to proximate cause: 147 S.C. 184; 76 S.C. 202; 81 S.C. 333; 122 S.C. 17; 115 S.C. 177; 155 S.C. 115; 137 S.C. 359; 151 S.C. 164; 146 S.C. 28; 131 S.C. 432; 113 S.C. 636; 109 S.C. 238; 107 S.C. 216; 156 S.C. 511; 90 S.E., 281; 152 S.C. 239; 148 S.C. 161; 144 S.C. 427; 126 S.C. 450; 101 S.C. 59; 69 S.C. 356. Contributor
Defendant's ninth request to charge directed to be reported, appears in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Carter. Messrs. Adam H. Moss, Frank G. Tompkins and P.F.Haigler, for appellants, cite: Presumption that failure togive signals was cause of injury may be rebutted: 140 S.C. 247; 47 S.C. 271; 63 S.C. 532. If plaintiff's intestate sawand heard train failure to give signals was not proximatecause: 110 S.C. 331; 117 S.C. 516; 119 S.C. 438; 120 S.C. 374; 34 S .C., 451. Error not to charge defendant'sninth request: 34 S.C. 292; 57 S.C. 243; 98 S.C. 492. Messrs. T.P. Taylor, Jas. S. Verner, A.F. Spigner and J.C. Hiott, cite: Question for the jury: 91 S.C. 546; 93 S.C. 71; 140 S.C. 260; 121 S.C. 394. Violation of statuteis negligence per se, but only evidence of willfulness: 108 S.C. 390; 106 S.C. 123. Defendant's ninth requestwas charge on facts: 151 S.C. 433; 92 S.C. 490.
Messrs. Claude M. Aman, and Alfred Wallace, Jr., for respondent, cite: From the standpoint of relevancy, theadmission of testimony is largely in discretion of trialJudge: 135 S.C. 62; 140 S.C. 388; Id., 445; Id., 296. Where there is ample evidence to support the verdict itwill not be reversed because some questionable evidencegets injected into the case: 78 S.C. 73; 91 S.C. 328; 95 S.C. 466; 138 S.E., 675; 93 S.C. 295; 94 S.C. 282; 138 S.C. 241. Admission of hearsay testimony asto matters otherwise proved is not prejudicial: 120 S.C. 290; 108 S.C. 472; 140 S.C. 123. As to statutory signals: 76 S.C. 368; 99 S.C. 264. After failure to askfor further instructions to clarify any matters, cannot nowcomplain: 83 S.C. 82; 138 S.C. 421; 136 S.C. 506; 129 S.C. 200; 128 S.C. 59; 127 S.C. 426; 126 S.E., 437; 134 S.C. 67; 120 S.C. 223; 27 S.C. 268; 136 S.C. 21; 141 S.C. 245; 76 S.C. 49; 40 S.C. 134; 134 S.E., 367. Failure to give statutory signals raisesprima facie case for plaintiff: 63 S.C. 532; 84 S.C. 137. Same, raises presumption that such failure was proximatecause of the injury: 138 S.E., 675; 140 S.C. 245; 14 S.C. 245. Charge must be taken as a whole: 140 S.E., 98. An error in one part of a charge may be corrected byother parts: 84 S.C. 1; 57 S.C. 325; 105 S.C. 509; 71 S.C. 322; 141 S.C. 397; 102 S.C. 166; 72 S.C. 43; 86 S.C. 379; 84 S.C. 125; 87 S.C. 415; 141 S.E., 90. Punitive damages follow as a matter of right upon properproof of willfulness and wantonness: 91 S.C. 71; 62 S.C. 325; 65 S.C. 143; 69 S.C. 160; 75 S.C. 299; 75 S.C. 301; 69 S.C. 110; 60 S.C. 48. As to charge onnegligence: 71 S.C. 156; 76 S.C. 49; 87 S.C. 190; 94 S.C. 341; 104 S.C. 33; 91 S.C. 523; 90 S.C. 391. March 29, 1928.
The following cases have laid down the law substantially as the rule has been applied in the opinion of Mr. Justice Watts: Littlejohn v.Railway, 49 S.C. 12; 26 S.E., 967. Fletcher v. Railway, 57 S.C. 205; 35 S.E., 513. Mack v. Railway, 52 S.C. 323; 29 S.E., 905; 40 L.R.A., 679; 68 Am. St. Rep., 913. Nohrden v. Railroad Co., 59 S.C. 87; 37 S.E., 228; 82 Am. St. Rep., 286. Mercer v. Railway, 66 S.C. 246; 44 S.E., 750. Burns v. Railway Co., 61 S.C. 404; 39 S.E., 567. Hutto v. Railway Co., 61 S.C. 495; 39 S.E., 710. Edwards v. Railway Co., 63 S.C. 271; 41 S.E., 458. Davis v. Railway Co., 63 S.C. 370; 41 S.E., 468. Kirbyv. Railway Co., 63 S.C. 494; 41 S.E., 765. Bishop v. RailwayCo., 63 S.C. 532; 41 S.E., 808. Cooper v. RailwayCo., 65 S.C. 214; 43 S.E., 682. Mercer v. Railway Co., 66 S.C. 246; 44 S.E., 750. Gosa v. Railway Co., 67 S.C. 247; 45 S.E., 810. Osteen v. Railway Co., 76 S.C. 368; 57 S.E., 196. Sanders v. Railway Co., 93 S.C. 543; 77 S.E., 289. We refer especially to Folk v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 99 S.C. 284; 83 S.E., 452.
No wilfulness on which to base verdict for punitivedamages: 62 S.C. 269; 15 S.C. 412; 69 S.C. 444; 2 Suth. Damages 1093; 12 A. E. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 24. Messrs. George Warren and Holman Boulware, for respondents, cite: Judgment in an action under Lord Campbell'sAct not res adjudicata of an action under the survivalstatute: 97 S.C. 27; 81 S.E. 189. Statutory Signal requirementscumulative to any existing law: 1 Civ. Code 1912, sec. 3314; 25 S.C. 53; 47 S.C. 28; 61 S.C. 404; 74 S.C. 377. Presumption of negligence from failure to give signalat a crossing: 84 S.C. 125; 65 S.E. 1031; 59 S.C. 99; 63 S.C. 271; 63 S.C. 532; 78 S.C. 374; 84 S.C. 125; 63 S.C. 370; 83 S.C. 325. October 11, 1920.
Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Mr. J. Harry Foster, for appellant, cites: As to defenseof contributory negligence: 92 S.C. 490. Conduct of trial: 70 S.C. 211; 75 S.C. 68; 67 S.C. 136; 73 S.C. 503. Charge on negligence: 42 S.C. 402; 58 S.C. 229; 52 S.C. 291; 71 S.C. 156. Sudden emergency: 82 S.C. 72; 81 S.C. 339; 60 Am. St. Rep. 705. Injuries at crossings: Civil Code, sec. 3230; 92 S.C. 302; 99 S.C. 284; 81 S.C. 71; 87 S.C. 325; 63 S.C. 532. Presumptions: 91 S.C. 203; 84 S.C. 137. Degree of care: 81 S.C. 340. Messrs. Glenn Glenn, for respondent, cite: As to operationof automobiles: Crim. Code, secs. 601, 602; 90 S.E. 756. Signals at crossings: Civil Code, secs. 3222 and 3230. Contributory negligence: 28 S.E. 638. Negligence per se: 90 S.C. 260. No collision: 39 S.C. 514. Defect in publicroad: 76 S.C. 554.
If a person be on a public crossing across a railroad track in a town where a gate is kept which is up, and the train approaches without giving statutory signals and he in order to avoid a collision drives down the track, or from fright from letting down the gate the horse, runs down the track and is overtaken and injured away from the crossing the railroad is liable as if the accident happened on the crossing. Bishop v. Ry., 63 S.C. 532, 41 S.E. 808. This exception is overruled.
And to prevent that result the defendant may show that, notwithstanding the failure to give the signals, the plaintiff knew of the approach of the train in time to avoid the collision, for the object of requiring the signals is to give notice of the approach of the train. Edwards v. Ry., 63 S.C. 271, 41 S.E., 458; Bishop v. Ry., 63 S.C. 532, 41 S.E., 808; Nohrden v. Ry., 59 S.C. 99, 37 S.E., 228. The portion of the charge excepted to contains nothing but a proposition of law. We see nothing in it which justifies the complaint that it was a charge on the facts.