Mercer v. Southern Ry.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Action by Mary A. Mercer, administratrix of James W. Mercer, against Southern Railway. Prom judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Read the full summary
Action by Mary A. Mercer, administratrix of James W. Mercer, against Southern Railway. Prom judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. The former cites: As to the charge: 63 S. C., 494; 47 S. C., 375; 41 S. C., 19; 29 S. C., 304. Failure to give signals is negligence per se: 53 S. C., 121; 58 S. C., 223; 47 S. C., 381; 63 S. C., 371. The latter cite: As to the form of charge: 83 Mo., 436; 39 S. E., 730; 40 S. E., 37; 33 S. E., 96. Error is not cured by subsequently stating correct rule: 30 S. E., 262; 37 S. E., 972; 34 S. E., 976; 35 S. E., 873. Failure to give signals is negligence: 63 S.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Pope.
This appeal involves questions as to the correctness of the charge of the Hon. Richard C. Watts, as presiding Judge, to the jury on the trial before them. The cause of action is the alleged negligence of the defendant in failing to comply with the requirements of the statute law as to ringing the bell or blowing the whistle of the engine, beginning at a distance of 500 yards of a crossing by said railway over a pubblic highway, and continuing to ring the bell or sound the whistle until after such highway had been passed by such…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Field v. GREGORYSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1956
- Keel v. Seaboard Air Line RailwaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1918
- Dodenhoff v. Nilson Motor Express LinesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1939
- Gossett v. Western Union Tel. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1913
- Miller v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.