Davis v. Columbia & Greenville Railroad

Citations

• 21 S.C. 93
• 1884 S.C. LEXIS 77

Syllabus

<p>1. In the absence of all testimony in support of the material allegations in'the complaint, a non-suit is proper; but where, in support of such allegations, there is any testimony, the weight, truth, and sufficiency of which are to be determined, the case must go to the jury. Oases cited.</p> <p>2. In action by the administrator of a son against a railroad company to recover damages for killing the son, there being some evidence, altbough.of an uncertain cbaraetei-, showing a beneficial interest of the father in his son’s life, this question was properly for the determination of the jury.</p> <p>.3. AVhile a brakeman on a freight train was signalling the engine at night, the cup of his lantern fell out, and the light was extinguished; he then descended to the cab and procured another. When returning to the top of the cab he was knocked off and killed: Held, that this did not prove negligence by the company in furnishing a defective lantern.</p> <p>4. Negligence is a relative term; the surroundings are absolutely necessary to be ascertained before the question of negligence can be determined.</p> <p>5. A brakeman, while returning at night by a ladder on the side of the car to his position on the top of the train, then in motion, was knocked off and killed by an old tank, which was closer to the track than was necessary, or than tanks, at this day, generally are: Held, that in this there was no evidence of any negligence by the railroad company.</p> <p>6. A non-suit in this ease was therefore proper.</p>