{ "id": 8652720, "name": "R. M. BURGIN v. RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Burgin v. Richmond & Danville Railroad", "decision_date": "1894-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "673", "last_page": "675", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "115 N.C. 673" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "47 Mich., 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1400396 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/47/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Mo., 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 455122 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/68/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Wis., 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 11285112 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/54/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 N. C., 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11277763 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/66/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 N. C., 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649655 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/108/0034-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 262, "char_count": 3627, "ocr_confidence": 0.568, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.383975383063545e-07, "percentile": 0.9592341097878679 }, "sha256": "27586cbdcabc1764c09df2b9fcb43adf4ee0e6e3e55a996f618f80cc7d97ff03", "simhash": "1:b968ba06d5165f33", "word_count": 631 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:52.252220+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "R. M. BURGIN v. RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Shepherd, C. J.:\nThis action is brought for the recovery of damages sustained by the plaintiff in jumping from the defendant\u2019s train while it was in motion. It appears from the complaint that the plaintiff informed the conductor that he desired to get off at Round Knob, a station on the defendant\u2019s road, where it was the duty of the defendant to stop its train, but that defendant \u201c negligently and .carelessly failed and refused to stop its said train at said station so that plaintiff, who was compelled to stop at said station, being at the time on his way home to the bedside of one of his children, who was at the time in a dying condition, jumped from said train as it was passing said station of Round Knob, and in doing so was painfully and seriously injured,\u201d etc.\nWe think there can be no question as to the correctness of the ruling sustaining the demurrer. \u201c The general rule is that passengers who are injured while attempting to get on or off a moving train, cannot recover for the injury.\u201d Browne v. Railroad Co., 108 N. C., 34; Hutchinson on Carriers. sec. 641. In Lambeth v. Railroad Co., 66 N. C., 494, it was said, \u201c If the intestate, without any direction from the conductor, voluntarily incurred danger by jumping off the train while in motion, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.\u201d In addition' to these authorities, there are a great number to be found in other jurisdictions which abundantly sustain the proposition that it is contributory negligence to \u201cattempt to alight from a moving vehicle, although in consequence of the refusal of the carrier to stop, the passenger will be taken beyond his destination, unless he is invited to alight by some employee of the carrier, whose duty it is to see to the safe egress of the passengers from the conveyance. The mere fact that the train fails to stop, as was its duty, or as the conductor promised to do, does not justify a passenger in leaping off, unless invited to do so by the carrier\u2019s agent, and the attempt was not obviously dangerous.\u201d Walker v. Railroad Co., 41 La. Am., 795; Jewell v. Railroad, 54 Wis., 610; Railroad Co. v. Morris, 31 Grat., 200; Nelson v. Railroad, 68 Mo., 593; 2 Wood\u2019s Railway Law, 1133. To the same effect are the cases cited in defendant\u2019s brief from Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Iowa, Texas, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi and other States.\nIt is true, as stated in the cases of Browne andgLambeth, supra, that there may be exceptions to the general rule that it is contributory negligence to alight from a moving train, but there is nothing in this complaint to bring it within any of the exceptions indicated in those cases or other authorities. The anxiety of the plaintiff, to see his child, does not relieve him from the legal consequences of his reckless conduct. Railway Co. v. Bangs, 47 Mich., 470. It was clearly the proximate cause of the injury and bars a recovery.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Shepherd, C. J.:" } ], "attorneys": [ "Messrs. F. II. Busbee and G. F. Bason, for defendant.", "No counsel, contra." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "R. M. BURGIN v. RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY.\nAction for Damages \u2014 Common Carrier \u2014 Injury to Passenger\u2014 Jumping from Train in Motion \u2014 Contributory Negligence.\nThe mere fact that a train fails to stop, as is its duty, or as the conductor has promised to do, does not justify a passenger in leaping from it while in motion, unless invited to do so by the carrier\u2019s agent, and the attempt was not obviously dangerous.\nAction for damages, heard on complaint and demurrer, at Fall Term, 1894, of McDowell Superior Court, before Allen, J. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff appealed. The facts appear in the opinion of Chief Justice Shepherd.\nMessrs. F. II. Busbee and G. F. Bason, for defendant.\nNo counsel, contra." }, "file_name": "0673-01", "first_page_order": 693, "last_page_order": 695 }