Pharr v. R. R

3 Citing cases

  1. Middleton v. Norfolk W. Ry. Co.

    165 F.2d 907 (4th Cir. 1948)   Cited 5 times

    " The decisions on which the appellant especially relies do not differ in principle from those referred to above; see, Powell v. Southern R.R., 125 N.C. 370, 34 S.E. 530; Henderson v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 159 N.C. 581, 75 S.E. 1092; Hill v. Norfolk Southern R.R., 169 N.C. 740, 86 S.E. 609; Jenkins v. Southern R.R., 196 N.C. 466, 146 S.E. 83; Barnes v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 168 N.C. 512, 84 S.E. 805; Carter v. Southern R.R., 135 N.C. 498, 47 S.E. 614; McArver v. Southern R.R., 129 N.C. 380, 40 S.E. 94; Pharr v. Southern R.R., 119 N.C. 751, 26 S.E. 149; Caudle v. Seaboard Air Line R.R., 202 N.C. 404, 163 S.E. 122; Smith v. Salisbury S.R.R., 162 N.C. 29, 77 S.E. 966; Marks v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 133 N.C. 89, 45 S.E. 468. On the facts of the particular cases, some of the earlier decisions seem to apply the rules as to the duty of the railroad with greater strictness; but we must assume the responsibility of applying the law to the facts of the pending case, and we find the more recent cases cited in the body of this opinion more persuasive. In the light of these decisions, we find no error in the dismissal of the pending case by the District Court; and it seems clear that the North Carolina courts, if the case had been submitted to them, would have taken the same course.

  2. McArver v. Railroad

    40 S.E. 94 (N.C. 1901)   Cited 6 times

    Engineers in charge of moving trains are required by the decisions of this Court to exercise reasonable care in observing the track, keeping a diligent lookout for obstructions of any kind, including cattle, horses and hogs, and also persons who may be helpless or unconscious, or both. And this lookout is not only for the safety of the passengers on the train, but also for the protection of cattle, etc., and of those persons who may be in the condition and situation as just described. If, therefore, an engineer, in the omission of the requirement to keep a vigilant outlook fails to see such a person on the track, or so near to it as to be in peril from a passing train, and could have, by the use of his appliances, prevented the injury and failed to do so, then he would be also guilty of negligence. Deans v. Railroad Co., 107 N.C. 686; Carlton v. Railroad Co., 104 N.C. 365; Pharr v. Railroad Co., 119 N.C. 751; Norwood v. Railroad Co., 111 N.C. 236; Baker v. Railroad Co., 119 N.C. 1015; Upton v. Railroad Co., 128 N.C. 173. So the defendant's negligence in this case did not depend entirely upon whether the engineer failed to keep a lookout in front of the engine and along the track.

  3. Jeffries v. Railroad

    39 S.E. 836 (N.C. 1901)   Cited 11 times
    In Jeffries v. R. R., 129 N.C. 236, 39 S.E. 836, the following question, propounded to the engineer of the railroad company, was held to be objectionable: "After you saw the child, was anything not done that could have been done to save the child?

    Therefore, if the jury shall find as a fact from the evidence that the engineer, in the exercise of ordinary care, by looking ahead, could have seen the child, and, without injury to his passengers, stopped the train before he struck it, and that he failed to stop the train, thinking that the child would get off the track, or be taken off before he got to it, and so ran over it, the company would be negligent, and the jury should answer the first issue `Yes.' " This instruction was fully warranted by an unbroken line of cases from Pickett v. Railroad, 117 N.C. 616, 30 L.R.A., 257, 53 Am. St. Rep., 611 down to the present term, and is based upon every consideration of humanity and due regard to the rights of common carriers by rail and those injured by the dangerous machines which they must necessarily use in their rapid conveyance of freight and passengers. Among they many cases are Pharr v. Railroad, 119 N.C. 751; Fulp v. Railroad, 120 N.C. 529, and many others cited in Munroe's Notes to Pickett's Case, and there are others later than the publication of these notes. The defendant's counsel rest their exception upon an expression in the opinion in Bottoms v. Railroad, 114 N.C. 704, 25 L.R.A., 784, 41 Am. St. Rep., 799, which, in general terms, approved a charge of the Judge below containing the sentence that if the engineer was so occupied about his engine that he did not see the helpless person on the track in time to avoid the injury, the defendant would not be liable.