Bouknight v. Charlotte &c. R. R.

Citations

• 41 S.C. 415
• 19 S.E. 915
• 1894 S.C. LEXIS 133

Syllabus

<p>1. Action for Damages — Election.—The complaint for damages in this case did not state two causes of action between which the plaintiff could be required to elect, especially after plaintiff’s declaration in open court that no punitive damages were sought.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Non-Suit—Contributory Negligence. — -The complaint in this case stated a cause of action for injuries done to plaintiff by the defendant railroad company by a collision of cars while plaintiff was standing on the platform of an overcrowded train. And there being testimony tending to prove the charge, and contributory negligence being a question for the jury, a non-suit was properly refused.</p> <p>3. Evidence — Relevancy.-—This court will not declare error in the admission of testimony to show that an excursion train was crowded as it went into a terminus, where plaintiff complains of an injury resulting from the want of proper accommodation for the return of the excursionists, and where the facts objected to were testified to by other witnesses without objection.</p> <p>4. Passenger on Platform — Contributory Negligence. — There was no error in refusing to charge that getting on the platform of a running train is prima facie negligence, where contributory negligence, under the facts of this case, was properly declared and the question left to the jury.</p> <p>5. Railroad — Lease—Torts—Other Lines. — A railroad company that has leased its road and all of its property, easements, licenses, &c., to another company is liable for injuries negligently done to a passenger on a train operated by the lessee in the union depot of another road used by the lessor under license from the owner before the lease, and continued to be used by the lessee after the lease without further license from the owner.</p>