Southern Railway Co. v. Lanning
Southern Railway Co. v. Lanning
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The second instruction given for appellee is erroneous. It
The third instruction for the appellee is too broad in its terms. It states to the jury that, should they believe “that the acts of defendant’s servants were characterized by willfulness or capriciousness,” they might assess punitive damages. The jury by this instruction were given no definite idea as to what “acts” were referred to, what “servants” were meant, or to what special matter their intention was intended to be directed.
There is no contention or suggestion that any signal was given on the occasion mentioned, other than the one testified to as having been made by the witness, Fields. Therefore the first instruction for appellee was erroneous, and calculated to confuse, in submitting to the jury the question of whether Tanning “signalled said train.” Under the facts of this case we might not reverse for this alone, but, as a new trial must be awarded for reasons hereinbefore indicated, this error should also be avoided on another trial.
The true rule as to the measure of damages in cases where passenger trains, being properly signaled by prospective passengers, fail to stop at flag stations, is this: If the engineer and fireman in charge of the locomotive, through no fault of their own, and while in the exercise of due care on their part, fail to see or obey the signal on account of the manner in which it is given or by reason of prevailing atmospheric conditions, as fog or darkness, the railroad company is, for failure to stop the train, not liable; but if such employees fail to see the signal through
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Southern Railway Company v. John R. Lanning
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Raileoads. Flag stations. Failure to stop when flagged. When not liable. |a railroad' company is not liable to one intending to become a passenger for a failure to stop a passenger train at a flag station, where the engineer and fireman in charge of the locomotive, through no fault of their own, and while in the exercise of due care on their part, failed to see and obey the signal on account of the manner in which it was given, or by reason of prevailing atmospheric conditions, j 2. Same. When liable. Damages. For not stopping a passenger train, when duly flagged by intending passengers, at a flag station, a railroad company is liable: («) For compensatory damages, where its employes failed to- see the signal through negligence on their part, when by the exercise of ordinary care they could have seen it; and (b) For compensatory damages, and punitive damages, if the jury see proper to award the latter, where the signal was seen and understood by the employes in charge of the locomotive and their actions in not stopping the train was malicious, wanton or capricious. 3. Same. Instruction. Must be predicated of evidence. Where the testimony left it uncertain as to whether the engineer of a train saw a signal to stop at a flag station, and there was no proof that other employes saw the signal, an instruction that, if the engineer or other employes saw the signal to stop, and their failure to stop the train was either 'willful or capricious, punitive damages might be imposed, was erroneous, since there was no evidence of which to predicate it touching “other employes,” and it omits all reference to the engineer understanding the signal. 4. Same. Signal must be understood. An instruction that, if the engineer of a train saw a signal to stop at a flag station, and the failure to stop was either willful or capricious on his part, punitive damages might be imposed, was erroneous for failing to state that the engineer understood the signal. 5. Same. Instruction should specify facts. An instruction, in an action against a railroad company for failing to stop a train at a flag station, tbat if tbe acts of defendant’s servants were characterized by willfulness or capriciousness punitive damages might be awarded, is erroneous if it fail to state wbat acts were referred to and wbat servants were meant. 6. Same. Must not be confusing. Where, in an action against a railroad company for failure to stop a train at a flag station, tbe evidence showed tbat tbe only signal to stop was made by a third person, an instruction submitting tbe question whether plaintiff signalled tbe train, and charging tbat if the train was signalled by a third person, and if tbe servants of tbe company saw, or by tbe exercise of ordinary care might have seen, plaintiff’s signals, plaintiff should recover, was erroneous as calculated to confuse the jury, and for want of evidence of which to predicate it touching signals given by plaintiff himself.