Northern Pac Co v. Charless, 184

Citation40 L.Ed. 999,16 S.Ct. 848,162 U.S. 359
Decision Date13 April 1896
Docket NumberNo. 184,184
PartiesNORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. CHARLESS
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

C. W. Bunn, for plaintiff in error.

Reese H. Voorhees, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice PECKHAM delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff below was an ordinary day laborer, employed, under a section boss or foreman, to keep a certain portion of the roadbed of the defendant in repair. The foreman had power to employ and discharge men, and to superintend their work, and was himself a workman. He employed the plaintiff, who, with the rest of the men employed in the gang,—some four, five, or six,—was carried to and from his work, daily, on a hand car worked by the men themselves.

In August, 1886, on the 28th of the month, an accident occurred as the men we e on their way to their work. They were using a hand car with what is alleged to have been a defective brake. The foreman had complained of it to the yardmaster a short time before, who had promised a better one. In the meantime, and as a temporary make-shift, the foreman had provided the car with a brake which consisted of a bit of wood, 4x4, fastened on the side of the car with a bolt; and the long arm acted as a lever, and pressed the shorter portion of the timber against the wheel. In that way the car had been run for a day or two before the morning of the accident. On that day the plaintiff, with the rest of the men in the gang, and the foreman, started on the hand car to go over a certain portion of the section to inspect the condition of the road. They were running the car very rapidly, under the direction and supervision of the foreman, and had arrived at a narrow cut in the road, around a curve, when they were suddenly confronted with a freight train coming through the cut in the opposite direction. There had been no warning or signal of any kind given by any of the employees on the freight train of its approach, and plaintiff below knew nothing of the fact that any freight train was expected. Efforts were made to stop the hand car, and, as the speed did not seem to be slackened in time, plaintiff became frightened, and undertook to jump from the front end of the car, when he stumbled over some tools that were on the car, and fell between the rails in front of it. As the hand car approached him he put his foot up against it, in order to prevent its running over him; but the impetus of the car was too great, and it ran over and doubled him up, and wrenched his spine, causing him great internal injuries. The other hands jumped off the car, removed it from the track, and took the plaintiff out of danger, before the freight train passed by.

The injuries of the plaintiff were of a very serious nature, and his legs became paralyzed, and he was rendered a cripple for life. He commenced this action against the defendant below to recover damages on account of the negligence of the agents and servants of the defendant. The negligence claimed consisted in:

(1) The defective brake on the car, which it is alleged was an appliance for the prosecution of the work on the defendant's road, and necessary to be used to enable the employees to perform their duties, and that, as such appliance, it was the duty of the defendant to see that it was reasonably safe and fit for the purpose intended.

(2) The negligence of the foreman in charge of the gang, who directed the speed of the hand car, and ran it at a hazardous rate of speed, when he knew that a train coming towards him was expected, while the other members of the gang were ignorant of that fact.

(3) The negligence of the train hands on the approaching train, in giving no signals of their approach around the curve and through the cut, although they were near a public crossing, and some signals were necessary on that account.

Upon the trial evidence was given tending to prove the above facts, and among other things the judge charged the jury as follows:

'I think that the case, when stripped of all the side issues and the incidental questions surrounding it, resolves itself into just this question for this jury to determine: Whether the injury to the plaintiff resulted directly from the negligence of the defendant in needlessly exposing him to the danger of being hurt by a collision between the hand car and the extra freight train at the place where it occurred, or whether the injury was a mere accident, which was the result of one of the ordinary hazards of the employment in which he was engaged; whether it was an ordinary risk of his employment, or whether an extraordinary danger caused by the negligence on the part of the defendant; whether that negligences was a engligence of the foreman in running the hand car too fast up to a point which he knew to be dangerous, and which he did not warn the other men workin on the hand car of, so that it was impossible for them, without extreme hazard to their lives, to avoid a collision; or whether the negligence was on the part of the officers in charge of the freight train, in approaching a curve in the cut, which obstructed the train from view, or passing a public crossing, without giving warning by sounding the whistle or engine bell.

'If, in any of these respects, there was actual neglect on the part of defendant which placed the plaintiff in a situation of extraordinary danger,—something clear beyond the ordinary risks of his employment,—and his injury was not in any degree owing to his own negligence at the time, the defendant would be liable to damages.'

The defendant below excepted to each of the above propositions, as laid down by the learned judge in his charge, and the jury...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
  • Union Pac. R. Co. v. Marone
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 26 Octubre 1917
    ... ... v. Keegan, 160 U.S. 259, 262, ... 264, 267, 16 Sup.Ct. 269, 40 L.Ed. 418; Northern Pacific ... R. Co. v. Charless, 162 U.S. 359, 361, 363, 364, 365, 16 ... Sup.Ct. 848, 40 L.Ed ... ...
  • Fogarty v. St. Louis Transfer Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 10 Febrero 1904
  • Fogarty v. St. Louis Transfer Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 17 Marzo 1904
    ... ... Keegan, 160 U.S. 267; ... Reed v. Stockmeyer, 74 F. 192; Railroad v ... Charless, 162 U.S. 359; Deep Mining Co. v ... Fitzgerald, 21 Col. 542; Railroad v. May, 108 ... Ill ... ...
  • Gulf Refining Co. v. Ferrell
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 17 Abril 1933
    ... ... Foland, 91 N.E. 595; Graffon v. Town of Poland, ... 99 A. 14; Gallant v. Great Northern Paper Co., 95 A ... 889; Small v. Allington & Curtiss, 48 A. 178; ... Pasco v. Minn. Steel & ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT