Willis v. Vicksburg, S. & P. RY.

Citations

• 115 La. 54
• 38 So. 892
• 1905 La. LEXIS 614

Syllabus

<p>RAILROADS— OPERATION OF TRAIN — WATCHING TRACK — NEGLIGENCE—PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE — INJURY TO PASSENGER.</p> <p>1. The company is liable for backing an engine and tender without a lookout.</p> <p>2. There were two men on the engine — the engineer and his helper. Neither saw the accident.</p> <p>3. In backing a short distance over depot grounds and depot yards, there should have been some one on the lookout. It does seem that the engineer could have been on the lookout, for it does not appear that while running at a very slow rate of speed the engine requires extraordinary attention; or the fireman, who has very little, if anything, to do on the way from depot to roundhouse, and no further, might have been on the lookout at or near the front of the tender.</p> <p>4. The collision took place with the tender in front of the backing car, whereby the man lost his life. Because of the absence of a “lookout,” the mind is led to a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant company, which, if it might have been rebutted, was not rebutted. It does appear that a lookout could have avoided the accident.</p> <p>In the absence of explanatory evidence, negligence was found by the jury, which on appeal does not appear erroneous.</p> <p>5. The maxim res ipsa loquitur is applicable. There was prima facie evidence of negligence, which defendant failed by its testimony to explain away.</p> <p>6. Yards about a passenger depot are a public place. One is not a trespasser who follows a pedestrian beaten path in the attempt to get on the train about to leave, although this path is some feet away from the depot.</p> <p>Monroe and Provosty, JJ., dissenting.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>