BIRT v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

7710

Attorney(S)

Messrs. J.A. Willis, H.F. Buist and H.H. Ninestein for appellant. Mr. Willis cites: Plaintiff had the right to have this case submitted to the jury on common law right of action: 81 S.C. 572; 16 S.C. 588; 2 Strob. 356. Plaintiff had the right to amend by changing the cause of action: 83 S.C. 557. Messrs. Harley Best, contra, cite: Defendant was entitled to nonsuit on failure to prove negligence: 41 S.C. 86; 158 U.S. 285; 10 S.E. 352; 57 P. 938; 59 N.E. 211; 95 F. 305; 133 Fed. 1009; 142 Fed. 176.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

BIRT v. SOUTHERN RY.

November 11, 1910. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE HYDRICK.

When there is testimony tending to show damage to property caused by fire communicated by a railroad engine, it is error to grant nonsuit on the ground that there is no evidence of negligence; in such cases, a prima facie presumption of negligence arises which casts the burden on the railroad corporation to show that its engine was constructed, equipped, and managed with due care. Hutto v. Ry., 81 S.C. 567, 62 S.E. 835, and cases cited.

A complaint which alleges that such fire was negligently set out may be amended during trial, after the evidence has been taken, by striking out the allegation of negligence so as to make the action one under Section 2135 of the Code of 1902, which makes every railroad corporation liable for damage caused by fire communicated by its engine (except in the cases specified) without regard to the question of negligence. Brown v. Ry., 83 S.C. 557.

Reversed.

BIRT v. SOUTHERN RY.

Comments