145 Ky. 305 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1911
Opinion op the Couet by
Affirming.
On July 30,1909, between 11 P. M. and 12 P. M., Norman Mayfield was killed in tbe yards of tbe Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Eailroad Company at Danville, Kentucky. He was in tbe service of tbe company firing an engine called a clam shell and used in handling coal. His father, George W. Mayfield,_ operated the engine. Shortly before midnight he, with the permission of his father, left the clam shell to go to a restaurant and get a lunch. In going to the restaurant he went across the railroad yard. At this time a live engine was backing in on one of the tracks with a dead engine in front of it; that is, both engines were backing but the dead engine was backing in front of the live engine. Ed Weddle, the engineer in charge of the' live engine, was in the cab of that engine, and W. L. Hudson, a brakeman, was in the front of the tender of the dead engine with a lantern in his hand; that is, he was on the end ■ of the tender that was in front as the engine was backing along. As they were proceeding in this .way the front wheels of the front trucks ran over Norman Mayfield’s legs, injur
It is earnestly insisted that Mayfield was asleep upon the railroad track and there is much in the evidence to sustain this view. „ But this matter was clearly submitted to the jury by the instructions of the court. Instruction 7 given by the court is as follows:
‘ ‘ The court instructs the jury that'if they believe from*307 the evidence that Norman Mayfield voluntarily went upon the track of the defendant company and sat down upon same and placed Ms head down upon Ms knees and this was Ms position at the time lie was run upon and-injured by defendant company’s engine, then, be, tbe deceased, Norman Mayfield, was guilty of such contributory negligence as bars tbe plaintiff’s right to recover, and they will find for tbe defendants, notwithstanding you may believe from tbe evidence that tbe defendants were guilty of negligence as stated in Instruction No. 1.”
Tbe finding of tbe jury for tbe plaintiff under this instruction is a finding by them that tbe injury did not occur as stated by Hudson. Tbe credibility of the witnesses is for tbe jury and we cannot disturb tbe verdict on tbe ground that it is palpably against tbe evidence. It is also insisted for tbe defendant that Mayfield bad a safe way to go to tbe restaurant and that be voluntarily went across tbe yard incurring a danger that be need not have incurred. But this matter was also aptly submitted to ¿be jury by tbe instructions of tbe court, and we do not see that the defendants’ substantial rights were prejudiced in any way as to this matter.
Tbe court did not-err in refusing to instruct tbe jury peremptorily to find for tbe defendants. According to tbe evidence for tbe plaintiff tbe place was one where tbe presence of persons might reasonably be expected. It is within tbe corporate limits of Danville and employees were constantly moving about in this part of the yard. In a number of cases we have held that cars should not be moved in sucb places without a reasonable signal of their approach or without a reasonable lookout or light on them when it is dark. (Shelby v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. R. Co., 85 Ky. 224; Conley v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. R. Co. 89 Ky. 402; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Potts, 92 Ky. 30; Dunn v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. R. Co., 108 Ky. 561; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Lowe, 118 Ky. 260.) Tbe court gave tbe jury this instruction :
“1. - If you believe from tbe evidence that the track and place in tbe defendant’s yard where Norman May-field was run over and injured was habitually and frequently used by tbe employees of tbe company in going to and from their place of work therein to their meals, and to tbe machine shop with tbe knowledge and acquiescence of tbe defendant, and was a place where tbe presence of employees of tbe company was to be anticipated, and that deceased was going from bis work to his*308 midnight supper when struck, then it is the duty of the defendants when moving on that part of the track where he was injured to keep a lookout for employees using it as a footway, and to give reasonable signals and warning of the movements of its engines when approaching said place, and if you believe from the evidence that the defendant in charge of the company’s two engines mentioned in evidence negligently failed to perform either or both of these duties in the movement of said engines, and that by reason thereof the plaintiff’s intestate, Norman Mayfield, while so on the track at said place, was run upon and received injuries from which he died by said train and that he was. at the time using ordinary care for his own safety, then you will find a verdict for the plaintiff against the defendants, Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Company and Ed. Weddle, and if you do not so believe from the evidence you will find for the defendants.”
The instruction conformed to the rule laid down in the cases above referred to. There was sufficient evidence that the place where Mayfield was struck was habitually and frequently used by employees of the company in going to and from their place of work, and it was a place where the presence of persons should reasonably be anticipated.
Judgment affirmed.