Southern Ry. Co. v. Summers

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

As we understand, the trial court eliminated wantonness and subsequent negligence on the part of the defendant, confining the plaintiff’s right to recover for simple, initial negligence, based on a conflict in the evidence as to whether or not the enginemen gave the required signals before reaching the crossing where the plaintiff was injured. This being the case, the defendant’s plea of contributory negligence was a good defense.

So the question is whether or not the defendant’s said plea of contributory negligence was established by the evidence beyond dispute. And,…