Norfolk & Western Railroad v. Burge

Citations

• 84 Va. 63
• 4 S.E. 21
• 1887 Va. LEXIS 8

Syllabus

<p>1. Bailroad Companies—Negligence—Crossings—Case at bar.—Defendant’s track ran on a city street. From it a side track led to a wharf through a gate surrounded by high fences, and on the east by buildings that prevented persons coming from the wharf from seeing approaching trains. No watchman was at the gate. At time of accident defendant was pushing a train to the wharf, but gave no signals. Plaintiff was driving out, when some one called him and he looked back, and the train collided with his truck and ran over his foot, whereby he sustained injury:</p> <p>Held:</p> <p>1. It was plaintiff’s duty to look and listen for approaching trains with the care of an ordinarily prudent man; if he failed to do so, he cannot recover, unless, when defendant saw him, or should have seen him, it failed to use proper means to avoid the accident.</p> <p>2. If place of accident was such that a person driving out could not see approaching train, plaintiff’s not looking in front of him was not contributory negligence, unless he knew the train was approaching.</p> <p>8. Instruction, which contains an abstract proposition and sheds no light on the case, is properly refused.</p> <p>4. Company running its trains on city streets, must use greater care than in less frequented localities, and any neglect of precautions proper in such case, constitutes negligence.</p> <p>5. If pushing train increased plaintiff’s danger, it was negligence in defendant not to give timely notice.</p> <p>6. Negligence being a mixed question of law and fact, it was proper to leave it to the jury to find whether defendant had done or omitted any act which, in the exercise of ordinary care, it was its duty to perform. -</p> <p>2. Idem—Verdict—Excessive damages.—Under the circumstances of this case, a verdict of §2,000 was not excessive.</p>