Chicago Northwestern Railway Company v. William Bower

Citation36 S.Ct. 624,241 U.S. 470,60 L.Ed. 1107
Decision Date05 June 1916
Docket NumberNo. 301,301
PartiesCHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM BOWER
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. A. A. McLaughlin, Wymer Dressler, and William G. Wheeler for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Michael F. Harrington for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:

We have here under review a judgment of the supreme court of Nebraska, affirming a judgment in favor of de- fendant in error in an action based upon the Federal employers' liability act of April 22, 1908 (chap. 149, 35 Stat. at L. 65, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8657), for the loss of an eye caused by the breaking of a lubricator glass on a locomotive engine upon which he was at work as engineer in the employ of plaintiff in error. 96 Neb. 419, 148 N. W. 145.

No question is made but that the cause of action arose in interstate commerce so as to bring the case within the Federal act. The facts upon which the question of liability depends are these: The plaintiff in the action (defendant in error) was an experienced locomotive engineer. At the time of his injury, which occurred at night in the month of November, 1910, he had just oiled his engine, taken it from the roundhouse, and placed it upon the outgoing track in readiness for his run. The engine was equipped with a Nathan lubricator, an appliance containing oil for the steam cylinders and the air pump, the oil being conducted to and within the parts where needed under steam pressure from the boiler. In order to give the engineer a view of the interior of the apparatus, and thus enable him to see that the oil was dropping, three cylindrical glass tubes were attached, one carrying the oil for each steam cylinder and one for the air pump. Each of these glasses was surrounded with a shield of perforated metal in two parts, hinged together and lightly clamped upon the glass tube by means of a spring to hold it in place. When the lubricator was in operation, the tubes were required to sustain the same steam pressure as the boiler. These tubular glasses would sometimes break. This was most liable to occur: (1) when a glass was newly installed, and before it had been properly tempered; (2) when it was subjected to a sudden change of temperature, as when steam was admitted to it while cold; and (3) they would, after six or seven weeks' use, sometimes 'wear thin' and break for this reason. The metal shield was designed in part, at least, to prevent injury to the engineer from flying pieces in case the glass should break. This type of lubricator had been in use for over twenty years, and had been used upon all defendant's engines down to a time between three and four years prior to the accident. Then a new type, known as the Bull's Eye, came into use, and was recognized as a better appliance because, being unbreakable, it was safer for the engineer, and at the same time obviated the loss of time and delay of trains attributable to breakage of lubricators of the Nathan type; and defendant began to instal Bull's Eye lubricators in the place of the older type upon engines already in use, and to place them upon all new engines. During the earlier period of the use of the Nathan, and before the construction of locomotives of classes Q and R, the engines carried only 140 to 150 pounds boiler pressure, while engines of the classes mentioned carried 190 pounds. An experienced witness called by defendant testified that, at the time of the trial (about a year after the accident), approximately 25 per cent of the engines were still using the Nathan lubricator and 75 per cent were equipped with the Bull's Eye; that the Bull's Eye was and had been, for three or four years, recognized as 'the proper appliance;' that the Nathan was dangerous to the men, and that the change was being made partly because of this and partly because the breaking of the old style lubricator sometimes delayed trains.

Plaintiff testified that during most of the time for the past twenty years he had operated locomotives equipped with Nathan lubricators having tubular glasses, but not all of these were high-pressure engines. The engine on which he was injured was of class R, and carried a boiler pressure of 190 pounds. He had operated it for about two months prior to the time of his injury. During his experience of twenty years, lubricator glasses had broken with him on three previous occasions, the last being about three weeks before the occurrence in question. At this time he asked that a Bull's Eye be substituted on his engine. He testified that this was not because he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1957
    ...Co. v. Proffitt, 241 U.S. 462, 36 S.Ct. 620, 60 L.Ed. 1102; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Chicago & N.W.R. Co. v. Bower, 241 U.S. 470, 36 S.Ct. 624, 60 L.Ed. 1107; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. San Antonio & A.P.R. Co. v. Wagner, 241 U.S. 476, 36 S.Ct. 626,......
  • Harlan v. Wabash Ry. Co., 32085.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...299 Fed. 419; Atl. Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Woods, 252 Fed. 428; Railroad Co. v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248; Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Bower, 241 U.S. 470; Hines v. Logan, 269 Fed. 105; N.Y. Cent. Railroad Co. v. Marcone, Admx., 281 U.S. 345; Central Railroad Co. of N.J. v. Sharkey, 259 Fed. 1......
  • Montgomery v. CSX Transp., Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 6, 2004
    ...machinery and appliances [that are] reasonably safe and suitable for the use of the employee." Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Bower, 241 U.S. 470, 473, 36 S.Ct. 624, 60 L.Ed. 1107 (1916); see also Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. v. Lint, 217 F.2d 279 (8th Cir.1954); Coal & Coke Ry. Co. ......
  • Davis v. Chrisp
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • June 11, 1923
    ...Appellee assumed the risk, and cannot recover. 1 Roberts, Federal Liability of Carriers, 978; 233 U.S. 492; 241 U.S. 229; 245 U.S. 461; 241 U.S. 470; 241 U.S. 462; 236 U.S. 668; 241 310; see also 191 U.S. 64; 220 U.S. 590; 228 U.S. 319; 236 F. 1; 122 U.S. 189; 109 U.S. 478; 41 U.S. S.Ct. Re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT