Beasley v. Linehan Transfer Co.

• Decision Date: 07 March 1899
• Citation: 50 S.W. 87,148 Mo. 413
• Parties: BEASLEY v. LINEHAN TRANSFER CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

50 S.W. 87

148 Mo. 413

BEASLEY v. LINEHAN TRANSFER CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 7, 1899.

MASTER AND SERVANT — INJURY TO SERVANT — NEGLIGENCE OF MASTER — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE — ASSUMED RISK.

1. A car which was being delivered to defendant's boat broke loose, and rushed down the inclined landing, killing plaintiff's husband, who was employed on the boat. It appeared that, if the boat had been straight with the landing, the car would have kept the rails, and the accident would not have occurred, but that the boat was sufficiently straight to receive cars

delivered in the usual way. The car broke loose through the negligence of the railroad company, and the accident was one which defendant could not anticipate. Held, that defendant was not liable.

2. Perils from accidents, which an experienced employer cannot foresee and guard against, are assumed by the employé.

Appeal from circuit court, Cape Girardeau county; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth Beasley against Linehan Transfer Company. There was judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals. Reversed.

Seneca N. Taylor, Chas. Erd, and Seneca C. Taylor, for appellant. Wilson Cramer, for respondent.

VALLIANT, J.

This is a suit for damages for the death of plaintiff's husband, which she alleges was caused by defendant's negligence. Petition states, substantially, that defendant was a corporation owning a steamboat, and engaged in transferring freight cars for the St. Louis, Cape Girardeau & Ft. Smith Railroad Company, across the Mississippi, from Cape Girardeau to a point opposite, on the Illinois shore; that plaintiff's husband was in the employ of defendant as engineer of the steamboat, and on October 20, 1892, was at his post, when a car, which was being delivered by the railroad company to the boat to be transferred, broke loose from the train, ran with great force on the boat, struck the boilers, caused them to explode, and he was scalded to death; that the mode of delivering cars on the boat from the railroad was over an inclined track, down a steep grade, to the water's edge, where, by means of a movable track called a cradle, connection was made with a track laid on the deck of the boat from bow to stern; that over this route the custom was to back the cars in trains of two, three, or four each; that those railroad tracks were out of repair, and in such bad condition that the coupling pins which linked the cars in train were liable to be worked out of place, and the cars to become disconnected and run down the track, "wild and uncontrolled, with great force and momentum," upon the boat, and to produce a catastrophe like that above described; that the liability to danger which this condition of the railroad track caused could have been obviated by placing guards of heavy timbers and great thickness alongside the track on the boat, to catch the wheels of the cars that might run uncontrolled upon it; that such guards were practicable and usual on such boats, and could have been furnished at reasonable expense, and the liability to the danger might also have been reduced by means of a proper adjustment of the boat in the river, with shore lines and guys, whereby the track on the boat could be held in perfect line with those on the incline and cradle, so that when cars should break loose from the train, "coming down, wild and uncontrolled, upon the boat, they would pass through from stem to stern, and overboard, without running against the boilers and steam pipes"; and that it was practicable to do so, but defendant neglected those precautions, and placed the boat so that the track on its deck was not in a straight line with the track on the railroad incline and cradle, and on the fatal day above named "a freight car was dropped down said inclined railway track, wild and uncontrolled, towards and upon said boat, with great...