Murray v. South Carolina Railroad Co.
South Carolina Court of Appeals
26 S.C.L. 385 (1841)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
South Carolina Railroad Company (company) (defendant) employed James Murray (plaintiff) as a second fireman on the company’s trains. During a train trip, Murray and other crew members saw a horse near the train track. The train’s first fireman notified the engineer, and Murray told the engineer to stop the train. The engineer eventually shut off the steam when the train was much closer to the horse, but the engineer did not let down the brake to stop the engine and did not order Murray or the first fireman to let down the brake. The engine ran over the horse and was thrown off the track. Murray suffered severe injuries in the accident and sued the company to recover. At trial, the court received evidence that the train’s engineer was a skilled professional. However, the train’s first fireman opined that the accident could have been avoided had the engineer stopped the engine sooner. The first fireman further testified that firemen had no duty to let down the brake unless ordered to do so by the engineer. The train’s conductor also testified that the engineer had a duty to order the firemen to let down the brake. However, two other witnesses testified that the train’s second fireman had a duty to let down the brake to avoid an accident even if the engineer did not order it. The trial court instructed the jury that (1) Murray’s employment by the company subjected Murray to the ordinary risks of his position, (2) the company was liable to Murray if the engineer’s carelessness subjected Murray to unnecessary danger that Murray was unable to avoid, (3) the company was not liable to Murray if the engineer acted with ordinary prudence but could not avoid the accident, and (4) the company was not liable to Murray if Murray’s injuries were attributable to Murray’s own failure to perform a duty such as letting down the brake. The jury found for Murray, and the company appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Evans, J.)
Concurrence (Johnson, J.)
Dissent (Johnston, J.)
Dissent (O’Neall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.