Gilliam v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.

Citations

• 114 La. 272
• 38 So. 166
• 1905 La. LEXIS 453

Syllabus

<p>RAILROADS — INJURY TO PERSON ON TRACK— TRESPASSER — NEGLIGENCE.</p> <p>1. Plaintiff claims damages for the death of James Gilliam, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant company. lie was killed by the forward open car of a train operated by defendant’s employes. At half past 8 o’clock on a dark night he was asleep, in an intoxicated condition, on defendant’s private roadbed, between the tracks of the road, and in the open country. The train was being pushed northward by a locomotive placed at its rear end, and facing south. The train had a small red light attached to the rear of the engine, and three small railroad lanterns in the hands of men stationed upon the flat cars (in front as the train was running) of the engine. The negligence charged was that the company should have had on the forward moving flat car a light similar to the headlights usually placed in front of locomotives, enabling brakemen on the flat cars to discern objects on the track in time to avert injury. Meld, that plaintiff could not successfully urge as negligence the company’s failure to take such unusual precautions for the protection of the deceased, a trespasser upon its tracks. Smith v. Railroad, 17 South. 302, 47 La. Ann. 833.</p> <p>2. Trespassers have not the right to exact from railroad companies the same care for their safety as can their employés and their passengers.</p> <p>3. Defendants have been repeatedly relieved from the charge of negligence where the act done or omitted to be done was one which the party had no reasonable ground to know or believe, or could not reasonably be held to foresee in the light of the attending circumstances, or which he did not know, would carry with it injury as its natural and probable consequence.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.l</p>