63 So. 334 | Miss. | 1913
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
One of appellant’s locomotives while pulling a string of freight cars jumped tbe track, leaving tbe cars on,
In this state of case, appellee asked for and was granted the following instructions:
“(1) The court instructs the jury that the law requires every railroad company, upon stopping any train at a place where said railroad shall cross a highway, shall uncouple its cars as not to obstruct travel upon said highway for a' period longer than five minutes.
“(2) If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant railroad company’s servants failed to comply with the law, and that plaintiff was thereby impeded in his travel upon the public road, the jury may find for*35 plaintiff, and award Mm such damages as the jury may believe from the evidence he is entitled to, not to exceed two thousand dollars, the amount sued for.
“(3) If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff was unlawfully impeded in his travel upon said road by defendant, the failure of defendant’s servants to see plaintiff upon said road- would not entitle defendant to a verdict in tMs case.
“(1) The court instructs the jury that if the jury find for plaintiff, they must award him such actual damage as they believe from the verdict he has sustained'; and, if they believe that defendant acted in reckless disregard of the rights of plaintiff, they may award plaintiff punitive damages.-
“(5) The court instructs the jury that punitive damages are such as will not only compensate plaintiff for the actual damages sustained by Mm, hut will also make defendant have due regard for the rights of others in the future. ” '
Among other instructions for defendant, the court gave this instruction: “The court instructs the jury that the plaintiff cannot recover in this case because the engine was derailed; nor because the highway was obstructed and plaintiff’s travel delayed more than five minutes; nor can he recover in the absence of evidence showing to their satisfaction that the defendant, under all the circumstances of the case, kept the highway obstructed .for an unreasonable length of time.”
We do not think the five-minute statute is applicable to the facts of this case. This statute was evidently intended to prevent the voluntary blocking of public crossings. It is contended, .however, that the above-quoted instruction cured the error of the court in giving the instructions for plaintiff.
The instructions for plaintiff are in direct conflict with the instructions for defendant, and we cannot approve the verdict of the jury upon the theory that conflicting instructions are harmless.
Reversed and remanded.