part, a prima-facie case of negligence is made out.
P. R. Co., xv. 192.
Wilson v. Denver, S. P. &
It will be presumed that company built road, and company is liable accord-
ingly for injury to servant occasioned by defect in hand-car used in constructing
road. Solomon R. R. Co. v. Jones, xv. 201.
When contractor to build road assigned contract to president of railroad com-
pany, who thereupon proceeded to construction, company is liable for injury to
servant occasioned by negligence in course of construction. Solomon R. R.
Co. v. Jones, xv. 201.
Company liable to servant injured by latent defect in hand-car which has not
been properly inspected after collision causing patent defects. What is proper
inspection is for jury. Solomon R. R. Co. v. Jones, xv. 201.
Company held liable for injury to servant caused by patent defect in iron
maul furnished to him by section boss with which to drive spikes. Guthrie v.
Louisville & Nashville R. Co., xv. 209.
When section foreman is injured by defect in hand-car, he is not debarred
from recovery on the ground that it was his duty to supervise repairs of hand-
cars on his section. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kane, xv. 218.
Servant riding to work on small steam-car is not a passenger, and company is
not liable to him as such. McQueen v. Central Branch U. P. R. Co., xv. 226.
Whether defect in brake could have been discovered by reasonable care on
part of the company, was for the jury. Leahy v. Southern Pac. R. Co., xv. 230.
Where evidence showed that accident was occasioned by fracture of old form
of brake less effectual than newer form to stop train, but as to safety of which
compared with old form plaintiff's evidence was contradictory, held that there
was no evidence of negligence for the jury. Disher v. N. Y. Central, etc., R.
Co., xv. 233.
Company held liable for death of freight conductor from defect in ladder of
freight car. Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Moore's Adm'r, xv. 239.
The company not held negligent in construction and arrangement of ground
switch. Randall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., xv. 243.
Where servant was injured through mistaking damaged for sound car; held,
burden was on him to prove negligence of company in the premises. Fraker v.
St. Paul, etc., R. Co., xv. 256.
When party injured while coupling cars by being crushed against adjacent
platform, held, that if party was not guilty of contributory negligence, company
was not guilty of negligence. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, xv. 261.
Where injury was occasioned in coupling cars by unblocked frogs, witness
cannot be asked what danger is from that source, or whether a person coupling
cars could see frog on track. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Coates, Adm'r,
xv. 265.
When party killed in coupling box-cars with projecting timbers, held that
evidence tended to show negligence on part of company. Brown v. Atchison,
T. & S. F. R. Co., xv. 271.
Railroad is bound to take ordinary and not extraordinary care for the safety
of its servants. Gross negligence defined. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. McCoy,
In action for injury while coupling cars, court will not strike out allegation
in complaint that draw-bars were defective and insufficient." Tierney v. Bur-
lington, C. R. & N. R. Co., xv. 290.
May recover for injury partly caused by defect in trestle-work and partly by
negligence of fellow-servants. Elmer v. Locke, xv. 300.
DUTY AS TO CARS AND TRACKS OF OTHER COMPANIES.
Company not liable for injury to servant from defective car received from
another company. It is only bound to provide suitable and competent in-
spectors of such cars. Mackin v. Boston & Albany R. Co., xv. 196.
Company buying its road from another company is bound as to its servants
not only to maintain bridges in as good repair as when purchased, but to supply
all patent defects in original construction. Vosburg v. Lake Shore & M. S. R.
Co., xv. 249.
Company need not haul car of another company which is so defective as to
be dangerous to its servants. Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Carlton, xv. 350.
Company not liable for death of brakeman occasioned by low bridge of
another company. Gibson v. Midland R. Co., xv. 507.
Where custom and rule of company is to provide watchman to protect defec-
tive car under which employees are working, and an injury is occasioned by
failure to do this, question of negligence is for jury. Luebke v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. R. Co., xv. 183.
Whether or not brakeman used club to set up brake contrary to rules was for
the jury. Leahy v. Southern Pac. R. Co., xv. 230.
In case of injury from unblocked frog,_ order of company to block all
frogs may go in evidence. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Coates, Adm'r,
Company negligently backing freight car so as to injure minor son of em-
ployee of another company assisting his father in rightfully repairing car, is
liable in damages. Penna. Co. v. Gallagher, xv. 341.
When deceased was a minor and was killed while coupling cars, declarations
by him that he knew how to couple cars are inadmissible. Penna. Co. v. Long,
xv. 345.
Mother may recover for death of her minor son employed in coupling cars
without her consent, though not against her known will. Penna. Co. v. Long,
Whether company is negligent in setting inexperienced minor to couple cars,
one with ordinary draw-bar and one with Miller draw-bar, without special in-
structions, is for jury. Penna. Co. v. Long, xv. 345.
Mere fact that company employs minor with parent's consent in one capacity
and then changes his duties is not negligence. Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. Carl-
ton, xv. 350.
Company may employ minor of years of discretion without parent's consent.
In case of injury father can only set up duty of company to minor as its servant.
Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. Carlton, xv. 350.
CONTRIBUTORY Negligence aND RISKS OF EMPLOYMENT.
When servant is employed in operating derrick, and is with others charged
with duty of keeping rope wet, and he fails to do so and it breaks, injuring him,
he cannot recover. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Fray, xv. 158.
When servant was injured by fall of pile of lumber, he was not necessarily
guilty of contributory negligence because he might have seen the danger and
avoided it. Fact ought to be considered by jury. Baldwin c. St. L., K. & N.
W. R. Co., xv. 166.
Servant going to sleep in round-house takes risk of employment. His ad-
ministrator cannot recover damages for death occasioned by his being run over
while so lying. Price v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., xv. 168.
When servant employed as sweeper is injured by falling into hole in round-
house, and there is no evidence that he was ever employed in round-house
before, it is error for the court to submit latter question to jury. Manning v.
Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., xv. 171.
In action by servant to recover damages occasioned while working on bridge
by alleged insufficient stay-lath where contributory negligence in using stay-lath
as scaffold was set up and verdict was rendered against company, new trial was
not granted to allow opportunity to defend on ground of accident, as it was not
clear that verdict would be for defendant. McCune v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,
XV. 172.
In action by servant to recover for injury occasioned by insufficient stay-lath
on bridge where he was working, where contributory negligence was set up in
using stay-lath as scaffold and verdict was for plaintiff, new trial was not
granted. McCune v. Northern Pac. R. Co., xv. 172.
Conductor injured by using defective step as to condition of which he has
notice, is guilty of contributory negligence. Jackson v. K. C., L. & S. K. R. R.
Co., xv. 178.
There can be no recovery for death of brakeman on moving train caused
by striking a bridge, where evidence wholly fails to show that deceased was
using due care. Riley, Adın'x, v. Conn. River R. Co., xv. 181.
When servant goes under defective car on siding to repair same, this is not a
dangerous service, risks of which he takes on himself. Luebke v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. R. Co., xv. 183.
Repairman injured while travelling on hand-car which collided with extra
train running without notice, according to custom of company: held, to have run
risk of his employment and not to be entitled to recover. Pennsylvania R. R.
Co. v. Wachter, xv. 187.
When servant has complained of defect in engine and master has promised to
fix it, servant may recover for injury occasioned by subsequent use of engine, if
defect does not indicate imminent danger. Greene v. Minneapolis & St. L. R.
Co., xv. 214.
Where servant complained of defects in hand-car and officers promised it
should be repaired, servant may without contributory negligence continue to
use car a reasonable time. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Kane, xv. 218.
When servant knows of defect in lever of hand-car, and continues neverthe-
less to use it and is injured in consequence, he cannot recover. East Tenn.,
etc., R. Co. v. Smith, xv. 224.
When servant might by reasonable care have escaped injury from defective
lever of hand-car, he cannot recover therefor. East Tenn., etc., R. Co. v. Smith,
xv. 224.
Servant continuing to ride in hand car, wheels of which had patent defect;
held, debarred from recovering for injury occurring in consequence. McQueen
v. Central Branch Northern Pac. R. Co., xv. 226.
Freight conductor not held guilty of contributory negligence in mode of using
defective ladder on freight car. Richmond & Ď. R. Čo. v. Moore's Adm'r,
Where brakeman was injured by defect in brake of damaged car which he
was engaged in hauling in yard: held, it was a risk of his employment. Yeaton
v. Boston & Lowell R. Corp., xv. 253.
Where proper rules are established, risk of handling broken cars must be pre-
sumed to be run by one employed in that work. Fraker v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co.,
xv. 256.
Where accident was not seen, evidence of sober habits of deceased was ad-
missible to disprove contributory negligence. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clark,
xv. 261.
Evidence as to usual mode of coupling and uncoupling cars at certain
switch is not admissible to show freedom from contributory negligence.
Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, xv. 261.
Company is not bound to warn servants of all dangers. Presumption is that
they understand nature and dangers of employment. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
Clark, xv. 261.
Where servant coupling cars had actual notice of danger from unblocked
frogs and was killed, burden of proof is on his administrator to show freedom
from contributory negligence. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Coates, Adm'r,
XV. 265.
When party killed in coupling cars with projecting timbers: held, that the
evidence did not necessarily show contributory negligence. Brown v. Atchison,
T. & S. F. R. Co., xv. 271.
Contributory negligence in coupling cars does not prevent recovery for injury
occasioned by gross negligence. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. McCoy, xv. 277.
Verdict for plaintiff in accident for injury to brakeman coupling cars occa-
sioned by fall into ditch, where evidence was conflicting as to how far plaintiff
knew of danger, was left undisturbed. Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Pinto, xv. 286.
It is negligence to back train against other cars except on signal of brakeman
detailed to couple. Party injured in this way may recover, notwithstanding
his contributory negligence in stepping between cars. Romick v. Chicago, R.
I. & P. R. Co., xv. 288.
NEGLIGENCE OF FELLOW-SERVANTS
(1) WHEN COMPANY LIABLE.
Under Kansas statute company is only liable for injury to servant by fellow-
servant where act or omission causing injury is that of agent or employee having
duty or authority in premises. Solomon R. R. Co. v. Jones, xv. 201.
Where engineer was killed by joint misconstruction with conductor of
equivocal telegram: held, under statute of Kentucky, that company was liable.
McLeod v. Ginther's Adm'r, xv. 291.
When laborer was injured in blasting, through negligence of foreman or local
boss: Held, that the two were not fellow-servants, and that the company was
liable. Gilmore v. Northern Pac. R. Co., xv. 304.
When brakeman is injured by failure of road-master to keep track in safe
condition, company is liable. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Moore, xv. 312.
When brakeman acts under orders of engineer, they are not fellow-servants.
Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Wheless, xv. 315.
Foreman is not fellow-servant of employee under him whom he has right to
employ and discharge as to acts which are the result of the exercise of the au-
thority conferred upon him. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. May, xv. 320.
Company is liable for injury occasioned by failure of boss car-repairer to pro-
vide for safety of those working under him. As to these, he is a vice-principal
and not a fellow-servant. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Fox, xv. 325.
Court may properly refuse to charge that company is liable to its servants for
the negligence of its other servants and employees. Baldwin v. St. L., K. &
N. W. R. Co., xv. 166.
Company is not liable for injury to repairman on hand-car by reason of failure
of fellow servants on approaching engine to show headlight in foggy weather.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Wachter, xv. 188.
Car-inspector and brakeman are fellow servants.
injury to latter caused by negligence of former.
R. Co., xv. 196.
Company is not liable for
Mackin v. Boston & Albany
Brakeman working ground switch and engineman on train are fellow-servants,
and neither can recover for injury caused by negligence of the other. Randall
v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., xv. 243.
Failure of engineman to sound statutory signal on approaching crossing does
not render company liable for injury occasioned thereby to brakeman who is
fellow-servant. Randall v. Balt. & Ohio R. R. Co., xv. 243.
Foreman handling damaged cars and subject to orders of yard-master and
others, is fellow-servant of person employed under him. The latter cannot
therefore recover from company for injury caused by foreman's negligence.
Fraker v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., xv. 256.
Where engineer is killed by fault of train-dispatcher, there can be no recovery
without affirmatively showing that the two were not fellow-servants. Blessing
v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Čo., xv. 298.
Engineer and brakeman on train are usually fellow-servants. One cannot
recover for injury occasioned by negligence of the other. Nashville, C. & St.
L. R. Co. v. Wheless, xv. 315.
Foreman having right to discharge and employ laborers is nevertheless fellow-
servant with laborer under him as to acts where he is simply a co-laborer with
those under him. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. May, xv. 320.
Station-agent has charge of track about station, and is fellow-servant of engi-
15 A. & E. R. Cas.-45
neer on train. Company is not liable for injury to latter by negligence of for-
mer as to such tracks. Brown v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., xv. 333.
The injury in this case occurred by negligence of fellow-servant, who was not
shown to have charge or control" of the subject within the meaning of the
Employer's Liability Act. Company was accordingly not held liable. Gibbs
et al. v. Great Western R. Co., xv. 336.
Two years' limitation applies to actions against railroad companies for injury
occasioned by negligence of a fellow-employee in all cases under the Kansas
statute. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. King, xv. 330.
Conductor in street-car running on Sunday cannot recover for injuries occa-
sioned by collision with another car. Day v. Highland St. R. Co., xv. 150.
Court cannot admit a set-off arising on a distinct ground of action by defend-
ant against plaintiff unless it has jurisdiction in such actions, even though de-
fendant declines to ask judgment for excess in his favor. Emery. St. Louis,
K. & N. W. R. Co., xv. 122.
In action for wages company may set off damages occasioned by negligence
of plaintiff in his employment, and may have judgment for any balance due him.
Harlan v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., xv. 130.
Failure of engineman to sound signals on approaching crossing does not ren-
der company liable for injury thereby occasioned to brakeman, who is fellow-
servant. Randall v. Balt. & Ohio R. Čo., xv. 243.
Failure to give signals in moving car at crossing, held, with other facts, to be
evidence of negligence. Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Zoffinger, xv. 370.
Company not liable for running over licensee on track with backing train giv-
ing signal. Hogan v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., xv. 439.
Statutes requiring sign-boards and signals have no application in case of per-
son travelling on road near and parallel to track. East Tenn., V. & G. R. R.
Co. v. Feathers, xv. 446.
Statute requiring signal on approaching crossing is only intended to provide
a warning to those crossing or intending so to do. It has no application when
by reason of failure to give signal parties are induced to approach so close that
their horses are frightened by noise of train and so injury ensues. Rosenberger
v. Grand Trunk R. Co., xv. 448.
When person is seen on track Tennessee statute requires alarm whistles to be
sounded, but does not specify number and character of whistles. Dinwiddie v.
Louisville & N. R. Co., xv. 483.
Under Alabama statute company is bound as to cattle at crossing only to give
signal when within a quarter of a mile. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v.
McAlpine & Co., xv. 544.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.rs/books/content?id=HsQ9AAAAIAAJ&hl=sr&output=html_text&pg=PA706&img=1&zoom=3&q=side&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1Gbl-kKaJekHFFa-ot2YSjNlhfxg&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=121,1306,529,99)
In this case speed of car in approaching crossing constituted with other facts
evidence of negligence. Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Zoffinger, xv. 370.
|