122 U.S. 189 (1887), Tuttle v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co.

Citation:122 U.S. 189, 7 S.Ct. 1166, 30 L.Ed. 1114
Party Name:TUTTLE, Adm'x, etc., v. DETROIT, G. H. & M. RY. CO.
Case Date:May 23, 1887
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 189

122 U.S. 189 (1887)

7 S.Ct. 1166, 30 L.Ed. 1114

TUTTLE, Adm'x, etc.,



United States Supreme Court.

May 23, 1887

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.

MILLER and HABLAN, JJ., dissent.


[7 S.Ct. 1166] O. M. Springer and F. A. Baker, for plaintiff in error.

E. W. Meddaugh, for defendant in error.



This was an action for negligence resulting in the death of plaintiff's husband and intestate, Orson Tuttle, a brakeman in the defendant's employment. The declaration contained three counts; the first of which charged that on or about the thirtieth of October, 1882, the said Tuttle was in the employ of the defendant in the city of Detroit at the 'Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee yards,' and, in the course of his ordinary employment. was ordered to couple some cars standing on a certain track known as 'Boot-Jack Siding;' that said siding is a double-curve track containing a very sharp curve; that, in compliance with the order, he proceeded to couple certain cars [7 S.Ct. 1167] on said siding, which were near a certain boat-slip, and, while he was endeavoring to couple said cars, the draw-heads of the cars failed to meet, and passed each other, allowing the said cars to come so close together that he was

Page 190

crushed to death; that there were no bumpers nor other device on either of the said cars to prevent them from going together, in case said draw-heads failed to meet and passed each other; and that the only device on said cars for the purpose of keeping them apart, and to receive the concussion in coupling, was the draw-heads aforesaid. The charge of negligence was that the defendant, disregarding its duty, neglected, in the construction of its said cars, to provide any means to prevent injuring its said employe in case the draw-heads of its cars so constructed should fail to meet or pass each other under circumstances set forth; and that the said defendant, in the construction of said 'boot-jack siding,' so called, negligently and unskillfully constructed the same with so sharp a curve that the draw-heads of the said cars failed to meet and passed each other, thereby causing the death of the said Orson Tuttle while in the act of coupling said cars as aforesaid, without fault or negligence on his part.

The third count was substantially the same as the first. The second count, which charged a defective construction of the car, in not supplying it with bumpers, or other means of preventing the draw-heads from passing each other, was abandoned at the trial. As stated in the brief of the plaintiff's counsel, 'the first and third counts allege that boot-jack siding was negligently and unskillfully constructed by the defendant with so sharp a curve that the draw-heads of the cars in use by it would pass each other, and cause the cars to crush any one who attempted to make a coupling...

To continue reading