Brown v. Atlanta & Charlotte A. L. Railway Co.

Citations

• 19 S.C. 39
• 1883 S.C. LEXIS 53

Syllabus

<p>1. Whether the facts of a case constitute negligence, as defined by the court, is a question for the jury.</p> <p>'2. A railroad company is not liable as a common carrier for cotton, placed by its owner near the track, where it was burned by a spark from a passing engine.</p> <p>■3. As to cotton placed near the line of a railroad, the company is not-liable for consequences resulting from its lawful use of locomotives on its track, if proper care and diligence was used.</p> <p>4. The burning of such cotton by a spark from the engine being proved, the onus was upon the company to disprove negligence, and this might be done by showing that they had the most approved mechanical contrivances to prevent the escape of fire, and that the engine was managed with due care and skill on that occasion.</p> <p>5. The erection by a town council of a platform near to a railroad siding for the storage of cotton, imposed upon the company no other responsibility than such as existed as to their use of the main track.</p> <p>6. And the use of such platform in part by the railroad company for holding-cotton in their custody did not so impose upon them the duty of providing a watchman for the platform, as to render them liable for cotton not receipted for, and there burned without their negligence.</p> <p>7. The Circuit judge'committed no error in charging the jury that “ defendant cannot be made liable on a mere probability that the lire was caused by its. engines, but only on the preponderance of proof that it was so caused, and on proof of negligence on the part of defendant or its servants — that tire probability must amount to proof.”</p>