N. & W. R. R. v. Williams

Citations

• 89 Va. 165
• 15 S.E. 522
• 1892 Va. LEXIS 85

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroad Companies—Passengers — Employees —The difference between the degree of care which such companies owe to a passenger and to an employee is vast. As to the former, they are held liable for the.slightest negligence; as to the latter, they are bound to use only ordinary care.</p> <p>2. Idem—Case al bar.'—Plaintiff, an engineman, started his train from a station, and ran 730 yards, attaining a speed of twenty or twenty-five miles an hour, when he saw freight-cars about forty yards ahead, which had been stored on a “ passing siding,” but had got loose and moved down on the main track. Plaintiff reversed his engine and jumped, breaking his leg. The freight-cars had displaced the switch, so as to expose the danger signal, which plaintiff might have seen, as well as the cars, in ample time. Besides, he was approaching a bridge in course-of construction at a forbidden rate of speed.</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>He was not entitled to recover, as he was guilty of contributory negligence.</p> <p>3. Idem—Negligence—Presumption.-—In case of an employee the court will not presume there was negligence in using the “ passing siding ” for storing cars.</p> <p>4. Idem—Rule—Absence of signal.—Plaintiff’s’ contention, that fog prevented him from seeing the danger signal, was untenable, because of the rule that “ a signal imperfectly displayed, or the absence of a signal where one is usually shown, must be regarded as a danger signal.”</p> <p>5. Idem—Double track—Bulletins.—The road was being double-tracked when the accident occurred, and bulletins were posted calling attention to the importance of keeping his train under control at such points:</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>Equivalent to actual notice.</p>