Chicago Ry Co v. Ward

Decision Date01 March 1920
Docket NumberNo. 198,198
Citation252 U.S. 18,64 L.Ed. 430,40 S.Ct. 275
PartiesCHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. et al. v. WARD
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. R. J. Roberts, of El Reno, Okl., W. H. Moore, of McAlester, Okl., Thomas P. Littlepage and Sidney F. Taliaferro, both of Washington, D. C., and W. F. Dickinson, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.

Mr. W. S. Pendleton, of Shawnee, Okl., for respondent.

Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Suit was brought in the superior court, Pottawatomie county, Oklahoma, against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and A. J. Carney to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been received by Ward while he was employed as a switchman of the railway company in its yards at Shawnee. He recovered a judgment which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 173 Pac. 212. The ground upon which recovery was sought against the railway company and Carney, who was an engine foreman, was that Ward, while engaged in his duty as a switchman, was suddenly thrown from the top of a box car upon which he was about to apply a brake. The petition alleged, and the testimony tended to show, that Ward was engaged as a switch man on a cut of cars which it was the duty of the engine foreman to cut loose from the engine pushing the cars in order that Ward might gradually stop the cars by applying the brake. It appears that at the time of the injury to Ward, the cut of cars had been pushed up an incline by the engine, over an elevation, and as the cars ran down the track the effect was to cause the slack to run out between them permitting them to pull apart sufficiently to be uncoupe d, at which time it was the duty of the engine foreman to uncouple the cars. The testimony tended to support the allegations of the petition as to the negligent manner in which this operation was performed at the time of the injury, showing the failure of the engine foreman to properly cut off the cars at the time he directed the engineer to retard the speed of the engine, thereby causing them to slow down in such manner that when the check reached the car upon which Ward was about to set the brake, he was suddenly thrown from the top of the car with the resulting injuries for which he brought this action.

The railway company and Carney took issue upon the allegations of the petition, and set up contributory negligence and assumption of risk as defenses. The trial court left the question of negligence on the part of the company and the engine foreman to the jury, and also instructed it as to assumption of risk by an employe of the ordinary hazards of the work in which he was engaged, and further charged the jury as follows:

'You are further instructed that while a servant does not assume the extraordinary and unusual risks of the employment yet on accepting employment he does assume all the ordinary and usual risks and perils incident thereto, whether it be dangerous or otherwise, and also all risks which he knows or should, in the exercise of reasonable care, know to exist. He does not, however, assume such risks as are created by the master's negligence nor such as are latent or are only discoverable at the time of the injury. The doctrine of an assumption of risk is wholly dependent upon the servant's knowledge, actual or constructive, of the dangers incident to his employment. Where he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable and ordinary care, should know the risk to which he is exposed, he will, as a rule, be held to have assumed them; but where he either does not know, or knowing, does not appreciate such risk, and his ignorance or nonappreciation is not due to negligence or want of care on his part, there is no assumption of risk on the part of the servant preventing a recovery for injuries.'

Treating the case, as the court below did, as one...

To continue reading

Request your trial
203 cases
  • Schuppenies v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1924
    ... ... 478, 3 S.Ct. 322, 27 L.Ed. 1003; Southern R. R. Co. v ... Gray, 241 U.S. 333, 36 S.Ct. 558, 60 L.Ed. 1030; ... Ciebattone v. Chicago Great West. Ry. Co., 146 Minn. 362, 178 ... N.W. 890.) ... Those ... in charge of the operation of an approaching train have the ... P. 635, 28 L. R. A., N. S., 1255; Cnkovch v. Success Min ... Co., 30 Idaho 623, 116 P. 567; Chicago, R.I. & P. R ... Co. v. Ward, 252 U.S. 16, 40 Sup Ct. 275, 64 L.Ed. 430; ... Seaboard Airline R. Co. v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492, ... Ann. Cas. 1915D, 475, 34 S.Ct. 635, 58 ... ...
  • Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1957
    ...249 U.S. 515, 39 S.Ct. 355, 63 L.Ed. 738; affirmance of directed verdict for defendant affirmed. 1919 Term. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Ward, 252 U.S. 18, 40 S.Ct. 275, 64 L.Ed. 430; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff Boehmer v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 252 U.S. 496, 40 S.Ct. 409, 64 L.Ed. 68......
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1929
    ...and not-to-be-anticipated negligence of defendant's employees in charge of its engine. Director-General v. Templin, 268 Fed. 485; Railroad v. Ward, 252 U.S. 18; Montgomery v. Railroad, 22 Fed. (2d) 360; Railroad v. Proffitt, 241 U.S. 462. (9) There was no error in admitting the testimony of......
  • Tash v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 31629.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1934
    ...assume the risk, as a matter of law, either as to the escaping steam or the coal on the passageway. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ward, 64 L. Ed. 430; Gila Valley, G. & N. Railroad Co. v. Hall, 58 L. Ed. 521; Choctaw, O. & G. Railroad Co. v. McDade, 48 L. Ed. 96; Cross v. Railroad Co., 186 ......
  • 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