Boghich v. Louisville & NR Co.

Decision Date21 May 1928
Docket NumberNo. 5044.,5044.
Citation26 F.2d 361
PartiesBOGHICH v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

R. P. Reese, of Pensacola, Fla., for appellant.

Francis B. Carter, of Pensacola, Fla. (Carter & Yonge, of Pensacola, Fla., on the brief), for appellee.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant brought suit under the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59; Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665) to recover damages for the death of her husband, alleged to have been caused by the failure of appellee to furnish a proper headlight for the engine which he was operating at the time of the fatal accident, in violation of the Federal Boiler Inspection Act, as amended by the Act of March 4, 1915 (45 USCA §§ 2234; Comp. St. §§ 8630-8639b), and the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission adopted pursuant thereto.

It appears that Boghich was a locomotive engineer of long experience, and had been operating an engine on the run on which he was killed for about six months. On the fatal trip he left Pensacola at 6:20 p. m. for a run to River Junction, a distance of about 160 miles, with the headlight in good order, but for some reason it went out at Milligan, about 45 miles from Pensacola. Another bulb was put in, but would not light, and the train ran to Crestview, about 5 miles, where a small bulb was put in and the train proceeded to Cottondale, making regular stops at intermediate stations without difficulty. At Cottondale another railroad track crossed the track on which Boghich's train was running, and a passenger train, well lighted, was standing across the track. Boghich blew as usual for the stop at Cottondale, shut off steam to slow down, and then, apparently for the first time, discovered the train across the track and put on the emergency brake, but too late. The collision killed 3 people and injured 71, and Boghich received injuries from which he later died. There was no motion to direct a verdict, and the case went to the jury on a plea of not guilty and a plea denying that the defective headlight was the proximate cause of the injury, and resulted in a verdict for appellee.

There are 24 errors assigned. The first 6 run to the admission, over objection, of the rules of the company and evidence tending to show that said rules required all trains to come to a full stop before proceeding over a grade crossing of another railroad track, that decedent's attention had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Lepchenski v. Mobile & O. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1933
    ... ... 303, ... 72 L.Ed. 583, 48 S.Ct. 308; Hines Director v. Kesheimer, ... Admx., 198 Ky. 580, 249 S.W. 1001; Boghick v ... Louisville Railroad Co., 26 F.2d 361; Kemp v. Del L ... W. Railroad Co., 99 N. J. Law 238, 122 A. 731; ... Certiorari denied, 264 U.S. 583, 68 L.Ed ... ...
  • Armstrong v. Mobile & O. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1932
    ...So. Railroad Co. v. Jones, 276 U.S. 303, 72 L.Ed. 583, 48 S.Ct. 308; Hines, etc. v. Kesheimer, 198 Ky. 580, 249 S.W. 1001; Boghich v. L. & N. Railroad Co., 26 F.2d 361; Unadilla Railroad Co. v. Dibble, 31 F.2d 239; Wagner v. St. L. & S. F. Railroad Co., 19 S.W.2d 518; Imboden v. St. L. & S.......
  • Brock v. Mobile & O. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1932
    ...Co. v. Jones, 276 U.S. 303, 72 L.Ed. 583, 48 S.Ct. 308; Hines Director v. Kesheimer, Admx., 198 Ky. 580, 249 S.W. 1001; Boghick v. Louisville Railroad Co., 26 F.2d 361; Kemp v. Del. L. W. Railroad Co., 99 N. J. Law 122 A. 731. Certiorari denied, 264 U.S. 583, 68 L.Ed. 861; Unadilla Ry. Co. ......
  • Riley v. Wabash Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1931
    ... ... Railroad Co. v. Lindquist, 27 F.2d 98; Reeves v. Ry ... Co., 179 N.W. 689; Patterson v. Director ... General, 105 S.E. 746; Boghich v. Railroad Co., ... 26 F.2d 361. (4) The defendant was not liable to plaintiff ... under the Boiler Inspection Act unless the evidence shows ... [45 U.S.C. A., ... sec. 51, and cases cited; Wabash Ry. Co. v. Hayes ... (Ill.), 234 U.S. 86, 58 L.Ed. 1226; Louisville, ... etc., Ry. Co. v. Rhoda (1917), 74 So. 19, 73 Fla. 12; ... Watkins v. Boston & M. Railroad, 138 A. (N. H.) ...          Defendant ... ...
  • 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