Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. v. Thompson
Decision Date | 28 April 1916 |
Docket Number | 1171. |
Citation | 232 F. 353 |
Parties | CANADIAN PAC. RY. CO. v. THOMPSON. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
E. C Ryder, of Bangor, Me. (Ryder & Simpson, of Bangor, Me., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Raymond Fellows, of Bangor, Me. (J. A. Cahners, Oscar F. Fellows, and Fellows & Fellows, all of Bangor, Me., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before PUTNAM and DODGE, of Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, District judge.
It is the view of the court that the judgment in this case in the District Court, in favor of the original plaintiff, should be affirmed. Suit was brought under the Employers' Liability Act, and the circumstances are told by the defendant in error, the original plaintiff, as follows:
Also it appears:
'The train was operating on Monday morning, November 24th, on the main international line, and between Squaw Brook and Greenville Junction, in the state of Maine. The work was interrupted three different times, because this work train had to take side tracks in order to clear through passenger and freight trains. Mr. Thompson, the deceased, was in charge of the train when it was loading the 'four-spot' rails, in that he had charge of giving the signals to move the train back and forth opposite the particular rails to be loaded. At the instant of the accident one car had been loaded with the rails, and the train crew was carrying this car of rails to Greenville, to be there set on a side track on its way to the distributing points of the rails. The train was backing. The empty flat car was therefore the front end of the train. The intestate was standing, as his duties required him to stand, on this empty flat car. The train was proceeding at a speed of about 10 miles an hour. As this empty flat car reached a high and narrow cut at the point of a sharp curve in the track, it struck a hand car on the track. The crew of the hand car had given no warning by stationing a man ahead, as required by the rules. Before the flat car struck the hand car, Thompson gave the signal to stop. The brakes were applied, but the train had sufficient momentum, so that the hand car was demolished and the flat car was derailed, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 307.
...B. & W. R. Co. v. McConnell, 228 F. 263 (C. C. A. 3), is on all fours; we concur in the ruling. See, also, Canadian Pac. R. Co. v. Thompson, 232 F. 353 (C. C. A. 1). The last decisions of the Supreme Court on which the defendant relies, concern wholly different situations. Chicago & N. W. R......
-
New Orleans & N.E.R. Co. v. Hanna
... ... injury. 3 Elliott on Railroads, section 1310; Canadian Pac ... Ry. Co. v Thompson, 232 F. 353 ... 3. The ... doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ... ...