L. A. HARRISON, Administrator, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
(Filed 15 March, 1916.)
Conflict of Laws — Issues—Jfegligence—Evidence—Trials—Questions for Jury.
While the issues in this action for damages against the railroad, alleging a personal injury received through defendant’s negligence, are controlled by the laws of Virginia, the question of sufficient evidence of the negligence alleged is determined by the rules of evidence obtaining here, and though circumstantial, it is held sufficient to ’sustain the verdict in plaintiff’s favor, s. c„ 168 N. C., 383.
AotioN tried November Term, 1915, of Noethampton, before Lyon, J., upon these issues:
1. Was the intestate of the plaintiff killed by the negligence of the defendant? Answer: “Yes.”
2. Was the plaintiff’s intestate guilty of contributory negligence? Answer: “Yes.”
*7523. Did defendants’ employees bave knowledge of tbe -intestate’s position ? If so. could tbe defendant bave avoided tbe killing of tbe intestate by tbe exercise of proper care? Answer: “Yes.”
4. "What damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: “$1,350.”
Tbe defendant appealed from tbe judgment rendered.
Peebles & Harris, Gay <& Midyette for plaintiff.
W. L. Long, P. S. Spruill for defendant.
Per Curiam.
Tbis case was before us at Fall Term, 1914, and is reported 168 N. C., 621. Upon tbe second trial bis Honor very properly changed tbe wording of tbe third issue so as to bring tbe issue squarely under tbe laws of Virginia. In tbe former opinion Justice Brown, speaking for tbe Court, held that tbe liability of tbe defendant must be determined under tbe law of Virginia as expounded by its highest Court, and said: -
“For a similar reason, tbe contention that under tbe ruling of the Court of Virginia there is no sufficient evidence that tbe intestate was struck and killed by tbe train cannot be sustained. Tbis fact must be determined by tbe rules of evidence obtaining in tbis State, and under our decisions there are circumstances in evidence which justify tbe court in submitting that disputed fact to tbe jury. Henderson v. R. R., 159 N. C., 581; Kyles v. R. R., 147 N. C., 394.”
Upon a review of tbe evidence upon tbe second trial, we are of opinion that there is circumstantial evidence sufficient to go to tbe jury to warrant their finding upon tbe first and third issues, and that tbe case was correctly submitted to -the jury.
No error.