{
  "id": 8654063,
  "name": "ADA SIGMON, Administratrix of C. A. SIGMON, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and YADKIN RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sigmon v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1923-11-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "519",
  "last_page": "522",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 N.C. 519"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 325,
    "char_count": 6746,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0766377855645895e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5611527930778976
    },
    "sha256": "d26d773a9fb9aa1d154bc36cb6225f6d4b3dd67778699bda93e4d4e2fd6a3f30",
    "simhash": "1:960b510bb01688e4",
    "word_count": 1148
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:30.005509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ADA SIGMON, Administratrix of C. A. SIGMON, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and YADKIN RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Olaek;, C. J.\nThis case is important, but the controversy lies within a very small compass. There can be no question that the intestate, the engineer, contributed to his death by his negligence in failing to obey' the \u201cmeet order,\u201d which required him to wait at Yadkin junction for the arrival of the freight train coming from Norwood on the Yadkin Railroad. The jury have so found, and there is no question as to the correctness of the verdict, but it was also the duty of the conductor and flagman, when they found that the engineer had gone contrary to orders, to have signaled the train to stop. In this case the flagman testifies that he \u201cforgot it,\u201d and the conductor, when asked why he did not give the signal to the engineer to stop, said that he \u201cdid not know why he did not.\u201d There was no telegraph office or telephone station at the junction, which is about one mile west of the station of the Southern Railway at Salisbury. It is in evidence that, while there was no contract in writing between the Southern and the Yadkin railways, the two roads were operated by the joint employees of the two companies.\nFrom the time the train left the station at Salisbury until the collision occurred, a mile south of the Yadkin junction, the conductor did not give any signal. There were not the required two signals and a short signal to the engineer to stop at the junction. The conductor saw the flagman pull the two signals for the engineer to go ahead. He knew that the signals meant for the engineer to pull his train ahead and go upon the Yadkin track, but he went on taking up His tickets. The next, thing the conductor knew was the collision. The train was worked by signals, and the purpose of the cord was to signal the engineer when to start and stop his engine.\nThe conductor was asked the following question: \u201cWhen the flagman pulled that cord and started that man on, why did you not pull the cord and stop him?\u201d and he answered, \u201cI don\u2019t know why I did not do it.\u201d\nWithout elaborating the evidence, it is sufficient to say that it justified the verdict of the jury that the collision was caused by the negligence of the officers, agents and employees of the defendants. While the intestate was guilty of contributory negligence, there was ample evidence that the collision would not have occurred but for negligence on the part of the conductor and of the flagman.\nUnder the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act the jury was empowered to apportion the recovery according to the ratio which they found should exist between the causal effect of the contributory negligence of the engineer and that of the defendants in the conduct of the conductor and flagman.\nIn the verdict and judgment we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Olaek;, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Evans & Galbraith, T. W. Maness, and Frank Armfield for plaintiff.",
      "Manly, Hendren & Womble and L. G. Caldwell for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ADA SIGMON, Administratrix of C. A. SIGMON, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and YADKIN RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 28 November, 1923.)\n1. Carriers \u2014 Employer and Employee \u2014 Master and Servant \u2014 Contributory Negligence \u2014 Negligence\u2014Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act \u2014 Statutes.\nA locomotive engineer, in inattention to \u201cmeet orders,\u201d running bis train, at a junction, upon another track upon which the coming train was expected, resulting in a collision therewith, is guilty of contributory negligence in causing the injury that resulted in his death; but in an action for damages against the railroad company therefor, under the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act, such negligence will not bar recovery, when it is shown that the conductor on the train should have avoided the injury by giving him timely signals to stop the train, and that in his presence the brakeman had signaled to go ahead, which would not have occurred had the conductor and flagman been observant of their duty.\n2. Same \u2014 Damages\u2014Comparative Negligence.\nUnder the provisions of the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act, where negligence and contributory negligence are shown, the jury are empowered to apportion the recovery according to the ratio which they find existed between the causal effect of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff\u2019s intestate, whose death resulted, and that of the negligence of the defendant.\n3. Actions \u2014 Carriers\u2014Principal and Agent \u2014 Joint Agencies \u2014 Negligence.\nWhere railroads are operated by the employees of both, an action against them both will lie for damages resulting from the negligence of the employers.\nAppeal by defendants from Webb, J., at April Term, 1923, of CABARRUS.\nThis was an action against the Southern Railway Company and the Yadkin Railroad Company under the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act, for the negligent killing of C. A. Sigmon, engineer, the Yadkin Railroad being owned and operated by the Southern Railway Company.\nC. A. Sigmon was an engineer on passenger train No. 3, operated by the defendants between Salisbury and Norwood, N. 0. He was killed in a head-on collision between a passenger train and a freight train about one mile east of the Yadkin junction, where the Yadkin Railroad connected with the Southern Railway a short distance west of Salisbury. A \u201cmeet order\u201d was issued at Salisbury by the defendants, known as a \u201cdouble meet\u201d order, fixing the meeting point of the two trains at said Yadkin junction. This order was given to the conductor, O. C. O\u2019Farrell, of the passenger train, and was also given to the engineer. The conductor testified: \u201cI am not sure whether Mr. Sigmon read the order to me or I read it to him. Anyway, I delivered it to him in Mr. Rainey\u2019s presence.\u201d The engine of the freight train belonged to the Southern Railway Company. The Yadkin junction was about one mile north of where the collision took place. The train left Salisbury on the day in question, 28 September, 1920, and the evidence of the flagman of the passenger train is that the conductor, O\u2019Farrell, told him he had orders to meet the Other train at Yadkin junction. At Yadkin junction the fireman \u201clined the switches\u201d to cross over to the Yadkin Railroad track. The conductor was engaged in taking up the tickets while the flagman was doing the work. At the junction the train did not stop as required by the meet order but passed on upon the track of the Yadkin Railroad Company, and a mile further on the collision occurred. The jury found upon the issues submitted that the death of the plaintiff\u2019s intestate was the result, \u25a0 in whole or in part, of the negligence of the officers, agents and employees of the Southern Railway Company and of the Yadkin Railroad Company, as alleged in the complaint. That the plaintiff\u2019s intestate, by his- own negligence, contributed to his death; and assessed the damages. From a judgment on the verdict, the defendants appealed.\nEvans & Galbraith, T. W. Maness, and Frank Armfield for plaintiff.\nManly, Hendren & Womble and L. G. Caldwell for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0519-01",
  "first_page_order": 583,
  "last_page_order": 586
}