Walker v. Redington Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 26 December 1893
• Citation: 29 A. 979,86 Me. 191
• Parties: WALKER v. REDINGTON LUMBER CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

29 A. 979

86 Me. 191

WALKER

v. REDINGTON LUMBER CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 26, 1893.

Report from supreme judicial court, Frankin county.

This was an action by William C. Walker, administrator on the case, against the defendant, the Redington Lumber Company, for negligently and carelessly maintaining a skid way or landing so near to the passing trains of the Phillips & Rangeley Railroad as to endanger the lives and limbs of persons having occasion to pass upon the trains and in the management thereof, whereby the plaintiff's intestate, a brakeman on one of such trains, received injuries that resulted in the loss of his life. The plea was the general issue.

The evidence for the plaintiff being taken out, it was agreed that the case be reported to the law court, with the stipulation that, if the court shall be of opinion that the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant, the case shall stand for trial; otherwise a nonsuit to be entered. Plaintiff nonsuited.

B. Emery Pratt, for plaintiff. F. B. Timberlake, for defendant.

HASKELL, J. A brakeman was last seen alive leaning from the steps of the forward end of a passenger car on the Phillips & Rangeley Railroad, looking backward and under the car, while the train was moving on a down grade. He set his brake, stepped down on the steps, and, holding on by the guard rails, leaned over, looking backward and under the car, evidently to observe whether the wheels were sliding. He returned to the brake, set it up, and then resumed his place of observation. The car passed a skid way about level with its floor, and at least 29 inches distant from it The skid way had been used by the defendant previously in loading logs upon platform cars. Presumably some part of the brakeman's body struck the skid way, that brushed him aside, and, hanging on for his life, he was carried a short distance, and then fell under the car, and was killed.

Assuming all other facts necessary to charge the defendant to be proved, what excuse can be given for the carelessness of the deceased? He had been passing daily by a lumber landing as far away from the sides of the cars as all ordinary platforms are, although passenger platforms, in these days, are much lower on standard-gauge roads than the floors of the cars. It was no part of his duty to lean from the car to observe the effect of his brake upon the wheels. He could ordinarily tell from his post at the brake rod when the wheels began to slide. It was...