Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. Crockett
Decision Date | 11 February 1886 |
Citation | 26 N.W. 921,19 Neb. 138 |
Parties | BURLINGTON & M. R. R. CO. v. CROCKETT. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error from Lancaster county.
Marquette & Deweese, for plaintiff.
Sawyer & Snell and J. R. Webster, for defendant.
An opinion was filed in this case at the last term of the court, judgment being reversed for want of a material allegation in the petition. Afterwards the parties entered into a stipulation that the petition be amended, and the cause again submitted, either party to have leave to file an additional brief. The action is brought by the plaintiff, the mother of Clayborn Crockett, as administratrix of his estate, to recover damages for his death, caused by the caving of an embankment at a gravel pit where he and others were at work for the railroad company. The plaintiff below (defendant in error) claims to have established two propositions by the evidence, which she alleges are sufficient to sustain the verdict: First, that Crockett was under the control of one Wyatt, and was ordered by him to shovel out a certain car near the embankment, which car had been partially covered up and derailed by a fall of earth; and, second, that it has been customary to place a watch at or near the bank, to give warning when it was apparent that it was about to fall, which precaution was omitted on this occasion. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff in error that neither of these propositions is supported by the evidence. This will require an examination of the testimony.
It appears from the testimony that for some months prior to November 18, 1881, when the accident occurred, Clayborn Crockett had been in the employ of the railroad company as under-boss of the shovelers of a gravel train, which at the time of the accident was being loaded with gravel at an embankment near Milford, to be carried to Lincoln; that an ordinary day's work was 60 cars, which required three trips; that the embankment in question is about a mile and a half east of Milford, and on the south side of the track, and is reached by a spur or side track from the main line, the bank at the highest place being from 20 to 30 feet in height; that on the day the accident occurred a number of the hands were absent,--the exact number does not appear,--and there seems to have been an attempt on the part of the conductor (Wyatt) to accomplish the usual amount of work; that before noon there was a fall of earth from a high part of the bank, which struck one of the flat cars, and partly buried it, and threw one end off the track.
The attorney for the plaintiff in error who argued the case insists that there is no evidence to show that Wyatt ordered Crockett to shovel out the car and get it on the track.
One Jerry Wilson testified (page 7) as follows:
One Calvin J. Montgomery testifies, (page 9:)
S. Black testified (page 13) as follows:
Joseph Carter testified, (page 16:)
J. Mitchell testified, (page 19:)
Mr. Wyatt, called as a witness by plaintiff in error, testified on cross-examination as follows, (pages 30, 31:) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. Pittsburg Coal Co.
... ... Y. 368, 2 N. E. 24-27 (failure of master to warn servant at work in mine of danger from rock liable to fall); C. F. R. R. v. Crockett, 19 Neb. 139,26 N. W. 921;Anderson v. Railway Co., 8 Utah, 128, 30 Pac. 305. And see Dizonno v. G. N. Ry. Co., 103 Minn. 120, 114 N. W. 736 (servant ... ...
-
Fredericks v. Ft. Dodge Brick & Tile Co.
... ... 584, 59 N.E ... 254); Simone v. Kirk, 173 N.Y. 7 (65 N.E. 739); ... Anderson v. Mill Co., 42 Minn. 424 (44 N.W. 315); ... Burlington & M. Co. v. Crockett, 19 Neb. 138 (26 ... N.W. 921); Andreson v. R. R. Co., 8 Utah 128 (30 P ... 305); Railroad Co. v. Holcomb, 9 Ind.App. 198 (36 ... ...
-
Fredericks v. Ft. Dodge Brick & Tile Co.
... ... App. 15; same case 188 Ill. 584, 59 N. E. 254;Simone v. Kirk, 173 N. Y. 7, 65 N. E. 739;Anderson v. Mill Co., 42 Minn. 424, 44 N. W. 315;Burlington & M. Co. v. Crockett, 19 Neb. 138, 26 N. W. 921;Anderson v. R. R. Co., 8 Utah, 128, 30 Pac. 305; R. R. Co. v. Holcomb, 9 Ind. App. 198, 36 N. E ... ...
-
New Omaha Thomson-Houston Electric Light Company v. Baldwin
... ... railroad company was held liable. This holding has been ... uniformly adhered to ... In ... Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. Crockett, 19 Neb. 138, ... 26 N.W. 921, Crockett had been ordered by the foreman in ... charge of a wrecking train to clear the ... ...