Bennett v. A. C. L. R.R., 123 S.E. 327 (S.C. 1924). · Go Syfert
Search
Bennett v. A. C. L. R.R., 123 S.E. 327 (S.C. 1924). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: (PS) Van Den Heuvel v. El Dorado County Judicial Court Seizures (caed, 2020-10-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (PS) Van Den Heuvel v. El Dorado County Judicial Court Seizures
E.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
“A 11 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 12 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 13 at 1949.
cited Cited "see" (PC) Reyes v. Valley State Prison
E.D. Cal. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 129 S. Ct. 13 1937, 1949-50, 173 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bennett
v.
A. C. L. Railroad Et Al.
11529.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jun 9, 1924.
123 S.E. 327
Messrs. Brown Bush, R.C. Holman and Thomas M. Boulware , for appellant, cite: Injuries sustained by passenger walking home after leaving station at invitation of 79 S.E., 91; 113 N.W., 447; 20 L.R.A. (N.S.), 1019; 145 Pac., 1023 ; 128 A.S.R., 234; 105 S.W. 26. Messrs. Harley Blatt and Douglas McKay , for respondent, cite: Liability of carrier where passenger is carried beyond destination: 10 C.J., 825; 2 Hutch. Car., 3rd Ed., Sec. 1126; 182 Pa., 457 ; 8 Sou., 330; 90 Mo. App., 489 ; 66 Tex., 603 ; 76 S.W. 697 . Plaintiff voluntarily leaving train terminated relation of passenger: 15 L.R.A., 399; 69 S.C. 445 ; 71 S.C. 532 ; 117 S.W. 217 . Proximate cause: 54 Mich., 555 ; 3 Hutch. Car., 3rd Ed., Sec. 1428, 1430; 72 S.C. 336 .
Watts, Messrs, Eraser, Cothran, Marion, Chiee, Gary.
Published

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from an order of nonsuit granted by his Honor, Judge Memminger, at Barnwell, Spring term. 1923.

The exceptions, three in number, allege error. We see no error. According to his own testimony, the plaintiff was asleep when he reached his destination, Orangeburg. When he arrived at the coal chute, and was told where he was, he, of his own volition, disembarked from the train; he was not required to do so. He saw the trestle, for he says when he saw it he turned back and attempted to catch the train, but it pulled out before he got to it, and he then attempted to walk the trestle, and fell off. The whole evidence fails to show any actionable negligence against the railroad. Appellant’s negligence was the sole cause of his injury.

The exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Eraser, Cothran and Marion concur. Mr. Chiee Justice Gary did not participate.