TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Birt v. Southern Ry.

Birt v. Southern Railway

Birt v. Southern Ry., 69 S.E. 233 (S.C. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 11, 1910
Docket
No. 7710
Judges
Hydrick
Citations
69 S.E. 23387 S.C. 2391910 S.C. LEXIS 133
Disposition
Reversed.
Cited by 4
Syllabus
1. Railroads — Communicated Fire — Negliegnce—Presumptions.—Testimony tending to show damage to property by fire communicated by a railroad' engine raises a presumption of negligence, which casts the burden on the railroad company to show its engine was constructed, equipped and managed with duet care. 2. Amending Pleadings — Ibid.—A complaint alleging a communicated fire was negligently set out may be amended during trial by striking out the allegations of negligence and alleging a cause of action under the statute which makes the railroad company liable without regard to negligence.
Summary
Before Gruber, J., Barnwell, October, 1909. Action by J. M. Birt against Southern Railway Co. Plaintiff appeals from order of nonsuit. 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. cite: Defendant was entitled to nonsuit on failure to prove negligence: 41 S. C. 86; 158 U. S'. 285; 10 S. E. 352; 57 Pac. 938; 59 N. E. 211; 95 E. 305; 133 Eed. 1009; 142 Fed. 176.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hydrick

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Hydrick.

1

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 oí 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.

2 Á 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →
1913: 11915: 11932: 11936: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.168 S.E. 143 (S.C. 1932)
  2. Koennecke v. Seaboard Air Line Railway85 S.E. 374 (S.C. 1915)
  3. Mellette v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.186 S.E. 545 (S.C. 1936)
  4. Loretto Literary & Benevolent Society v. Garcia18 N.M. 325 (1913)

Most recent

  1. Mellette v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.186 S.E. 545 (S.C. 1936)
  2. Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.168 S.E. 143 (S.C. 1932)
  3. Koennecke v. Seaboard Air Line Railway85 S.E. 374 (S.C. 1915)
  4. Loretto Literary & Benevolent Society v. Garcia18 N.M. 325 (1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hutto v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 62 S.E. 835 (S.C. 1908) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list