Combs v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad
Combs v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
It was error to exclude the testimony of Chambers to the effect that there was no obstruction which would have prevented the engineer from seeing Combs.
The point made by the learned counsel for the appellee that ■ Code 1906, § 1985, does not apply in this case> because the killing here occurred prior to the taking effect of the Code 1906, is not tenable, for the reason that Combs was not an employe of' the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, but of the St. Louis & San Francisco road, and it is the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company which is the defendant here.
On the whole case, we think it was error on the part of the-court below to give the peremptory instruction for the defendant. The case should have gone to the jury, for settlement by them of the questions of fact as to negligence and contributory negligence, under proper instructions from the court.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Virginia Combs v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Railroads. Person hilled on track. Evidence. Experts. In an action against a railroad company for the alleged wrongful dea'th of a decedent killed by a locomotive striking him, the tes- ‘ timony of an experienced railroad man, who had made observations of the locality from the cab of an engine, that the obstructions to a clear view of the track at the point where decedent was killed were not such as to have prevented the engineer in charge of the locomotive from seeing the decedent on the track, is admissible. 2. Same. Licenser and licensee of track. Injuries inflicted on employe of other. Where one railroad company licensed another to run trains over its tracks, an employe of the licensee, killed on the track by a train of the licenser, was not the latter’s employe.