Birt v. Southern Ry.

Supreme Court of South Carolina November 11, 1910

Birt v. Southern Ry., 69 S.E. 233 (S.C. 1910)

87 S.C. 239; 1910 S.C. LEXIS 133

Hydrick

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

1 When there is testimony tending to show damage to property caused by fire communicated by a railroad engine, it is error to grant nonsuit on the ground that there is no evidence oí negligence; in such cases, a prima facie presumption of negligence arises which casts the burden on the railroad corporation to show that its engine was constructed, equipped, and managed with due care. Hutto v. Ry., 81 S. C. 567, 62 S. E. 835, and cases cited.

2 Á complaint which alleges that such fire was negligently set out may be amended during trial, after the evidence has been taken, by striking out the allegation of negligence SO' as to make the action one under Section 2135 of the Code of 1902, which makes every railroad corporation liable for damage caused by fire communicated by its engine (except in the cases specified) without regard to the question of negligence. Brown v. Ry., 83 S. C. 557.

Reversed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Birt v. Southern Railway
Cited By: 5 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Railroads — Communicated Fire — Negliegnce—Presumptions.—Testimony tending to show damage to property by fire communicated by a railroad' engine raises a presumption of negligence, which casts the burden on the railroad company to show its engine was constructed, equipped and managed with duet care. 2. Amending Pleadings — Ibid.—A complaint alleging a communicated fire was negligently set out may be amended during trial by striking out the allegations of negligence and alleging a cause of action under the statute which makes the railroad company liable without regard to negligence.