Choctaw, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Craig
| Decision Date | 14 May 1906 |
| Citation | 95 S.W. 168 |
| Parties | CHOCTAW, O. & G. RY. CO. v. CRAIG. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Logan County, Southern District; J. H. Evans, Judge.
Action by W. B. Craig against the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
E. B. Peirce and T. S. Buzbee, for appellant. Randell & Wood, Wilkins, Beaty & Vinson, and Robt. J. White, for appellee.
Craig was a brakeman in appellant's service on a freight train running from Hailyville to Ardmore, Ind. T. His train hauled a "dead engine" — that is, one carried by the train, not by its own steam — and the engine was put in the train after 16 cars and was followed by 8 cars. There was difficulty with this engine at several stations. This was known to Craig in a general way. When the station of Olney was reached the conductor told Craig that the engine had broken loose again, and told him to come and help to couple it, as he expected further trouble with it. The engine and car to which it was coupled were equipped with automatic couplers, which were coupled by a lever at the side, so that the brakeman does not have to go between the cars to make a coupling. The difficulty in this instance was that the coupler on the engine was about seven inches lower than the coupler on the car to which it must be attached, thereby preventing the knuckles of the couplers fastening. This necessitated a link and pin coupling, and, owing to the difference in height of the couplers and the presence of the pilot of the engine in the space where the brakeman had to go to make the coupling, it was more dangerous than the usual pin and link coupling. The other two brakemen of the train were placed in between the engine and car with an iron bar to lift the lower coupler to the height of the higher one, and Craig was directed by the conductor to then make a link and pin coupling. He attempted to do so and in straining on the link to try to bring it to the level of the coupler, the impact came, the coupling failed, and he as unable to get his hand out in time, and his fingers were cut off. A jury at Booneville gave him $2,500 damages. The chief contention on the appeal is as to the sufficiency of the evidence.
1. As to the negligence of the company: The court, under proper instructions, left to the jury the determination of the question whether the company had used care and prudence in furnishing its employés a reasonably safe place to work and safe means and instruments to carry on its service. The engine was placed in this train at Hailyville where it was made up and where common prudence called for an inspection of the train and its condition before starting on the journey. Even a casual examination would have shown that the automatic coupler could not be used with this engine and the link and pin coupler had to be resorted to. That these link and pin couplers are dangerous is a matter of common knowledge. Their thousands of victims moved Congress to forbid their use in interstate traffic. This was more dangerous than the usual link and pin coupler owing to the difference in height of the couplers and the presence of the pilot in the space to be used by the brakeman in making this coupling. The jury were fully warranted in finding negligence in not providing a safe method of coupling the engine to the car, and in placing the engine in a train where its coupler did not fit to the car next to it.
2. Does the evidence show this was a risk assumed by Craig? In the recent case of C., O., & G. Ry. Co. v. Jones (Ark.) 92 S. W. 244, the question of assumed risks was fully considered by the court. As therein shown where the risk is not one of the ordinary risks of the employment but is brought about by the negligence of the master, then there is no presumption that the risk was assumed. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial