Chicago Great Western Co v. Schendel
Decision Date | 02 March 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 422,422 |
Citation | 69 L.Ed. 614,267 U.S. 287,45 S.Ct. 303 |
Parties | CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN R. CO. v. SCHENDEL |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. A. G. Briggs, of St. Paul, Minn., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 287-289 intentionally omitted] Mr. Tom Davis, of Minneapolis, Minn., for respondent.
The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed a judgment in favor of respondent for damages resulting from the death of his intestate, Ring, fatally injured while in petitioner's service and while both were engaging in interstate commerce. The original action was based upon the federal Employers' Liability Act, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65, 66, c. 149 (Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665), and the Safety Appliance Act of 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531, as amended in 1910, by 36 Stat. 298, 299, c. 160, (Comp. St. §§ 8605-8623).
While the freight train upon which Ring served as brakeman was upon the main line at Budd, Iowa, a drawbar pulled out of a car. Thereupon the crew chained this car to the one immediately ahead. The engine pulled the whole train onto the adjacent siding, which lies on a gentle grade, and stopped. The intention was to detach the damaged car and leave it there. The plan was to cut off the engine, bring it around back of the train, remove the rear portion, couple this to the forward portion, and move on. Acting under the conductor's direction, Ring asked the head brakeman to tell the engineer to proceed, and then, without the knowledge of either of the others, he and the conductor went between the crippled car and the next one in order to disengage the connecting chain. While they were working there the engineer cut off the engine, the car ran slowly down the grade, and Ring, caught by the chain, suffered fatal injuries.
A rule of the company provided that employees should advise the engineer when they were going between or under cars and must know that he understood their purpose before they put themselves in any dangerous position. Ring gave no such warning, although familiar with the rule and with the grade upon which the train stood.
Petitioner insists: (1) The facts do not bring the case within the Safety Appliance Act since the car had come to rest on the side track and had ceased to be 'used,' within the meaning of the statute. (2) The defective drawbar did not proximately contribute to the injury. (3) The violation of the rule by Ring constituted negligence subsequent to and independent of the question of a defective safety appliance and was a proximate cause of the injury.
It is provided by the original Safety Appliance Act:
The amendment of 1910 directs:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rush v. Thompson, 39851.
...119 F. (2d) 307; Gray v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 197 Fed. 874; Cusson v. C.P.R. Co., 115 F. (2d) 430; Chicago, G.W.R. Co. v. Schendel, 267 U.S. 287, 45 S. Ct. 303; Philadelphia & R.R. Co. v. U.S., 191 Fed. 1; United States v. Erie R. Co., 237 U.S. 402, 35 S. Ct. 621; Hood v. B. & O., 302 Mo.......
-
Mooney v. Terminal Railroad Association, 38122.
...66; Grand Trunk W.R. Co. v. Lindsay, 233 U.S. 42; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Hadley, Admr., 246 U.S. 330; Chicago G.W.R. Co. v. Schendel, 267 U.S. 287; Spokane & I.E.R. Co. v. Campbell, 241 U.S. 497. (5) The evidence was sufficient to establish the custom of keeping a lookout. The engineer tes......
-
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Murray
...Liability Act. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Conarty, 238 U.S. 243, 35 S.Ct. 785, 59 L.Ed. 1290. In Chicago, Great Western R. Co. v. Schendel, 267 U.S. 287, 45 S.Ct. 303, 69 L.Ed. 614, the court careful to say that it had not intended to modify or overrule anything said in the Conarty case. W......
-
Meierotto v. Thompson
...S. Ct. 617, 55 L. Ed. 590; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Otos, 239 U.S. 349, 36 S. Ct. 124, 60 L. Ed. 322; Chicago, G.W.R. Co. v. Schendel, 267 U.S. 287, 45 S. Ct. 303, 69 L. Ed. 614, affirming 159 Minn. 166, 198 N.W. 450, 199 N.W. 111; Conrad v. B. & O.R. Co., 345 Mo. 335, 133 S.W. (2d) 350. (......