Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1910

Birt v. Southern Ry.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided November 11, 1910 · Hydrick

69 S.E. 233; 87 S.C. 239; 1910 S.C. LEXIS 133 (South Eastern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Mellette v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (S.C. 1936)
Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. (S.C. 1932)
Loretto Literary & Benevolent Society v. Garcia (N.M. 1913)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.