Smith v. Southern Railway
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Gary, J., Pickens, March, 1897. Action by Wm. S. Smith v. Southern Railway Company. The Judge charged the jury upon gross negligence as follows: If he was not wilfully and grossly negligent and careless, and contributed thereby to that damage, then I charge you that the law says that the railroad company is liable per se.
Read the full summary
Before Gary, J., Pickens, March, 1897. Action by Wm. S. Smith v. Southern Railway Company. The Judge charged the jury upon gross negligence as follows: If he was not wilfully and grossly negligent and careless, and contributed thereby to that damage, then I charge you that the law says that the railroad company is liable per se. (Court reads Rev. Stat., 1692.) Now, what is gross negligence? Negligence, ordinarily, is the want of due and proper care, such as a man of ordinary prudence and reason and forethought would exercise to avoid danger. In determining whether or not the plaintiff is…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
The plaintiff sued here for $1,950, on account of personal injury received by himself at a street crossing in Liberty, S. C., by reason of a collision with a train belonging to the defendant, operated on the Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Railway. The cause came on to be heard by his Honor, Judge Ernest Gary, and a jury. Verdict for plaintiff for $500. After judgment, defendant appealed. At the trial and before it commenced, plaintiff admitted that his action was brought under our statutes requiring a railway company to signal the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1932
- Dyson v. Southern Ry.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1909
- Martin v. Southern Ry.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
- Orenstein v. New Jersey InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1925
- Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1932
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.