47 So. 640 | Miss. | 1908
delivered the opinion of the court.
Without deciding the point made as to whether this record as presented warrants us in considering the action of the court be
Coming, now to the second trial, the plaintiff’s testimony clearly establishes that the signal to stop was given at the usual place, in the usual manner, and as soon as the tyain came in sight around the curve. The engineer swears positively that he was on the lookout for signals, that it was an unusual thing for the train to pass Beechwood without stopping, and that, despite the inclement weather, he would have seen the signal had it been given in the’manner, testified to by plaintiff’s witnesses. This "brings the question of punitive damages squarely within the rule laid down in Wilson v. N. O. & N. E. R. Co., 63 Miss. 352; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. White, 82 Miss. 120, 33 South., 970; Southern Ry. Co. v. Lanning, 83 Miss. 161, 35 South. 417. In view of the testimony here given, it was for the jury to say whether the failure of the employees to stop the train was wilful, reckless; or capricious; and the second instruction granted defendant, denying the right to punitive damages under any circumstances, was erroneous.
Reversed and remanded.