73 F. 661 (N.D.Ga. 1895), Central Trust Co. of New York v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co.
|Citation:||73 F. 661|
|Party Name:||CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. EAST TENNESSEE, V. & G. RY. CO. (Clark, Intervener).|
|Case Date:||October 01, 1895|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
Arnold & Arnold, for intervener.
Dorsey, Brewster & Howell, for defendant.
NEWMAN, District Judge.
Under orders of this court in the case above named, Samuel Spencer, Henry Fink, and C. M. McGhee are receivers operating the property of the defendant corporation. The case now before the court is the intervention of Martin Clark, claiming damages alleged to have been inflicted on him while in service of the receivers as fireman on the freight train. The facts and the issues involved will appear fully by the report of the special master to whom the intervention was referred, which report is as follows:
To the Honorable the Judges of Said Court: The above-stated intervention was duly referred to me, by an order of the court, and I have taken the evidence and heard the argument in the case, and report as follows:
Statement of the Case.
The intervener alleges that he was employed as a fireman by the receivers operating the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway on June 14, 1894, and that on the night of that day, while in the proper discharge of his duties as such fireman, he was knocked off the engine attached to a freight at a point south of Powder Springs, on the line of said railway, and in the Northern district of Georgia. He alleges that he was knocked off said engine
by a station-limit board, which he alleges was located too near the track; that, at the time of the injury to himself, he had received an order from the engineer to look out of the gangway and inspect the condition of a hot box, and, while leaning out of said gangway, he was struck on the side of the head by a station-limit board, and knocked from said engine to the ground. He alleges that the train was running at the rate of twenty-five miles an hour. He sets forth in his petition, specifically the extent of his injuries, and their character. The negligence which he alleges against the defendant, as the cause of the injury, was, that the station-limit board was located too near the track; rendering it unsafe for employees, in the proper discharge of their duties. The defendants admit that the intervener was employed as a fireman at the time alleged, and that said railway was operated by them as receivers. They deny any negligence, and claim that said station-limit board was not located too near the track, but at a reasonably safe distance, and that an injury therefrom could only happen by the negligence of an employee in leaning out too far, or from an improper place on said engine. They claim, further, that the intervener was fully aware of the position of said station-limit board, but insist that he either accidentally fell from said engine, or that the accident was the result of his own negligence. These are the contentions of the parties.
The evidence in the case is somewhat voluminous and contradictory. After a careful consideration of the same, I am of the opinion that the following conclusions are reasonably deducible therefrom: The station-limit board in question, a few days after the accident, was taken up by the employees of the defendant, and removed three feet further from the track than where it had originally been placed. From an actual measurement, it was shown that the post was located, at the time of the accident, six and on-half feet from the near rail of the track, the measurement being from the hole left in the ground where the post formerly stood. The post was about seven feet high from the ground, having at the top a board with the words 'Station Limit' printed thereon, extending towards the rail eighteen inches. This would bring the end of the board on top of the post four and one-half feet from the near rail of the track. It was shown from the evidence that the engine extended over the rail from two to three feet. These facts clearly show that the station-limit board was sufficiently near the track to have struck the employee, if he had been leaning out from the gangway two and one-half feet. Was this station-limit board, therefore, so near the track as to render it dangerous to servants of the defendant in the proper and reasonable discharge of their duties? On this point the evidence of the defendant fixes the customary and safe distance of such obstructions at least eight feet from the rail of the track,-- one foot and a half further than the actual measurement makes this station-limit board. In view of these facts, I think it is fair to conclude that this particular post was...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP