Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Cowley
| Decision Date | 07 November 1908 |
| Docket Number | 802. |
| Citation | 166 F. 283 |
| Parties | CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. v. COWLEY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Herbert Fitzpatrick and F. B. Enslow (Simms, Enslow, Fitzpatrick & Baker, on the brief), for plaintiff error.
E. L. Nuckolls (C. W. Dillon, on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge, and BOYD and DAYTON, District Judges.
The facts in this case vary in no material particular from those involved in the case of Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co. v. McDade, 112 F. 888, 50 C.C.A. 591, which subsequently was affirmed by the Supreme Court, after elaborate argument and careful consideration, without dissenting voice, 191 U.S. 64, 24 Sup.Ct. 24, 48 L.Ed. 96.
The legal principles involved have also been substantially considered by this court in the recent case of Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Beckett, 163 F. 479 (advance sheets), where the facts also were very similar. In the McDade Case it was held that the maintenance of a water spout attached to a water tank constructed so near to the track as to allow such pipe to hang so low over passing cars as not to clear a brakeman on the top thereof was negligence per se, and that evidence showing that the brakeman, after being on top of a car passing such tank, was found lying by the track injured, was sufficient to justify a jury in finding that he had been struck by the spout so negligently maintained. In the Beckett Case the same principle is enunciated as to a stand pipe so constructed, and, further, that servants of the company do not assume the risk from such structure merely because they know of its existence and general location. These principles are made fully applicable by the facts in this case.
We have carefully considered the assignments of error relating to the admission of testimony objected to, the giving of instructions excepted to, and the refusal to give others asked for, and find the same to be without merit. The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Marland
......Such findings,. upon like inferences drawn from similar situations, have been. sustained by the courts. In C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Cowley, 166 F. 283, 92 C.C.A. 201, and in Choctaw,. etc., R. Co. v. McDade, 112 F. 888, 50 C.C.A. 591,. affirmed by the Supreme Court in 191 U.S. 64, ......
-
McIntyre v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.
......He. therefore assumed the risk of injury, even though such risk. grew out of defendant's negligence. Chesapeake. Railroad v. Proffitt, 241 U.S. 462; Boldt v. Railroad, 245 U.S. 441; Baugham v. Railroad, . 241 U.S. 237; Kanawha Railroad Co. v. Kerse, ... Ry. Co. v. Kerse, 239 U.S. 576; Railroad Co. v. McDade, 191 U.S. 64, 48 L.Ed. 96; Ry Co. v. Beckett, 163 F. 481; Ry. Co. v. Cowley, 166 F. 283; West v. Ry. Co., 179 F. 801; Murphy v. Wabash Ry. Co., 115 Mo. 111; Charlton v. Ry. Co., 200 Mo. 364; George v. Ry Co., 225 ......
-
Looney v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co
...negligence the railway company must be held responsible. N. & W. Ry. Co. v. Beckett, 163 F. 479, 90 C. C. A. 25; C. & O. Ry. Co. y. Cowley, 166 F. 283, 92 C. C. A. 201; Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Ry. Co. v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64, 24 S. Ct. 24, 48 L. Ed. 96. Now recurring to the evidence of the......
-
Meek v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co.
...Moir, 219 F. 153; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Sherer, 205 F. 358; Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Marland, 239 F. 5; C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Cowley, 166 F. 283; v. Gaslight Co., 241 S.W. 909; Buesching v. Gaslight Co., 73 Mo. 219. (b) It is not disputed that the case is one governed by th......