Aerkfetz v. Humphreys

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBREWER
Citation12 S.Ct. 835,36 L.Ed. 758,145 U.S. 418
Decision Date16 May 1892
PartiesAERKFETZ v. HUMPHREYS et al

145 U.S. 418
12 S.Ct. 835
36 L.Ed. 758
AERKFETZ
v.
HUMPHREYS et al.
May 16, 1892.

STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE BREWER.

On May 17, 1887, William Aerkfetz, being under 21 years of age, by Frederick Aerkfetz, his next friend, commenced this action in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Michigan against the defendants in error, receivers duly appointed and in possession of the Wabash Railroad, to recover damages for personal injuries caused, as alleged, by their negligence. The defendants answered, and on a trial before a jury the verdict and judgment were for the defendants. To reverse such judgment this writ of error has been sued out.

C. E. Warner and L. T. Griffin, for plaintiff in error.

Wells H. Blodgett, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff was in the employ of the defendants in the yard of the railroad company at Delray, working on one of the tracks therein, and, while so engaged, was run over and injured by a freight car, moved by a switch engine.

Page 419

The defenses presented were three: First, the receivers were guilty of no negligence; second, even if they were, plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; and, third, whatever negligence there was, if any, was that of a fellow servant. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the ground of contributory negligence. Much might be said in favor of each of the three propositions advanced by the defendants. We rest our affirmance of the judgment upon the grounds that, under the circumstances, there was no negligence on the part of the defendants, and that the accident occurred through a lack of proper attention on the part of the plaintiff.

There is little dispute in the testimony, and the facts, as disclosed, are plainly these: The Delray yard is in the western part of the city of Detroit. In it were 12 tracks and side tracks, and the yard was used for the making up of trains. A switch engine was employed therein, and, as might be expected, was constantly moving forward and backward, changing cars, and making up trains. Plaintiff was a repairer of tracks. He had been employed there about 18 months, and was familiar with the manner in which the work was done. The yard was about a quarter of a mile in length. The tracks were in a direct line east and west, with nothing to obstruct the view in either direction. At the time...

To continue reading

Request your trial
274 practice notes
  • Kurn v. Stanfield, No. 11615.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 24, 1940
    ...U.S. 351, 50 S.Ct. 281, 74 L. Ed. 896; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Wiles, 240 U.S. 444, 36 S.Ct. 406, 60 L. Ed. 732; Aerkfetz v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 418, 12 S.Ct. 835, 36 L.Ed. 758; Bernola v. Penn. R. Co., 3 Cir., 68 F.2d 172; Wheelock v. Freiwald, 8 Cir., 66 F.2d 694; Jacobson v. Chicago, ......
  • New Orleans & N.E. R. Co. v. Benson, 33160
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1938
    ...as recognized in the federal courts cannot be implied. G. M. & N. R. Co. v. Collins, 151 Miss. 240, 117 So. 593; Aerfetz v. Humphreys, 145 U.S. 418, 36 L.Ed. 758; G. M. & N. R. Co. v. Wells, 276 U.S. 455, 72 L.Ed. 370; T. S. & W. R. Co. v. Allen, 276 U.S. 165, 72 L.Ed. 513; A. T. & S. F. R.......
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., No. 27609.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 5, 1929
    ...a switch. Ry. Co. v. Lindeman, 143 Fed. 946; Curtis v. Railroad, 267 Pa. 227; Carlo v. Ry. Co., 143 Atl. 5; Aerkfetz v. Humphreys, 145 U.S. 418. (c) That, as averred in the petition, such alleged custom was known to deceased or that its observance was relied upon by him or that his conduct ......
  • Hasenjaeger v. Railroad Co., No. 21948.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 8, 1932
    ...Co. v. Nixon, 271 U.S. 218, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Aeby, 275 U.S. 426, 48 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177; Aerkfetz v. Humphreys, 145 U.S. 418, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 836; Jones v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 30 S.W. (2d) 481; Salisbury v. Quincy, O. & K.C. Ry. Co., 175 Mo. App. 334......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
274 cases
  • Kurn v. Stanfield, No. 11615.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 24, 1940
    ...U.S. 351, 50 S.Ct. 281, 74 L. Ed. 896; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Wiles, 240 U.S. 444, 36 S.Ct. 406, 60 L. Ed. 732; Aerkfetz v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 418, 12 S.Ct. 835, 36 L.Ed. 758; Bernola v. Penn. R. Co., 3 Cir., 68 F.2d 172; Wheelock v. Freiwald, 8 Cir., 66 F.2d 694; Jacobson v. Chicago, ......
  • New Orleans & N.E. R. Co. v. Benson, 33160
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1938
    ...as recognized in the federal courts cannot be implied. G. M. & N. R. Co. v. Collins, 151 Miss. 240, 117 So. 593; Aerfetz v. Humphreys, 145 U.S. 418, 36 L.Ed. 758; G. M. & N. R. Co. v. Wells, 276 U.S. 455, 72 L.Ed. 370; T. S. & W. R. Co. v. Allen, 276 U.S. 165, 72 L.Ed. 513; A. T. & S. F. R.......
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., No. 27609.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 5, 1929
    ...a switch. Ry. Co. v. Lindeman, 143 Fed. 946; Curtis v. Railroad, 267 Pa. 227; Carlo v. Ry. Co., 143 Atl. 5; Aerkfetz v. Humphreys, 145 U.S. 418. (c) That, as averred in the petition, such alleged custom was known to deceased or that its observance was relied upon by him or that his conduct ......
  • Hasenjaeger v. Railroad Co., No. 21948.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 8, 1932
    ...Co. v. Nixon, 271 U.S. 218, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Aeby, 275 U.S. 426, 48 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177; Aerkfetz v. Humphreys, 145 U.S. 418, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 836; Jones v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 30 S.W. (2d) 481; Salisbury v. Quincy, O. & K.C. Ry. Co., 175 Mo. App. 334......
  • 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