Coates v. Boston & M.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1891
• Citation: 153 Mass. 297,26 N.E. 864
• Parties: COATES v. BOSTON & M.R. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

153 Mass. 297

26 N.E. 864

COATES v. BOSTON & M.R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 26, 1891

Exceptions from superior court, Suffolk county ROBERT C. PITMAN, Judge.

HEADNOTES

Labor and Employment 3002

231H ----

231HXVII Employer's Liability to Employees

231HXVII(F) Contributory Negligence; Diminution of Damages

231Hk3002 Admissibility of Evidence.

(Formerly 148Ak205 Employers' Liability, 255k274(9) Master and Servant)

A brakeman was ordered by the conductor of a freight train under whom he was working in a freightyard, to separate coal cars in the middle of the train from box cars at the rear and in so doing to ride upon one of the coal cars. He proceeded to get upon the rear coal car, as brakemen usually do in the absence of means for getting upon this kind of car by climbing over the side. He put one hand on the top of the car and tried to put his left foot upon the jaw-strap, an appliance placed out of sight under the body of such a car to strengthen it. The jaw-strap of the rear car had been gone for some time, and his foot went on to the rail just as the train was starting, and was crushed. Held, that evidence that it was customary for brakemen on the railroad, and especially in that yard, to get on over the side, was admissible to show that the order of the conductor also fairly implied that the plaintiff should get on in the usual way, as he tried to do.

Labor and Employment 2886

231H ----

231HXVII Employer's Liability to Employees

231HXVII(B) Working Conditions and Methods of Performing Work

231Hk2882 Questions of Law or Fact

231Hk2886 Locomotives and Railroad Cars.

(Formerly 148Ak228 Employers' Liability, 255k286(13) Master and Servant)

In an action by a brakeman against a railroad company there was evidence that plaintiff was ordered by the conductor under whom he worked to separate the cars in a moving train; that in order to do so he tried to climb upon the car that was to be cut off by putting his foot on the jaw strap, which was the usual way of getting on such cars; that, there being no jaw strap on the car, he fell, and was hurt; and that the jaw strap had been missing for some time. Held, that the case should be submitted to the jury.

COUNSEL

C.G. Fall and G.D. Burrage, for plaintiff.

Solomon Lincoln, for defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES J.

This is an action for personal injuries, and the question is whether there was any evidence on which the plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury. There was evidence tending to prove the following facts:

A train with coal-cars in the middle and box-cars behind them was to be broken up in the defendant's Lynn freight-yard. As the train was about to start, the plaintiff, a brakeman, was ordered by the conductor under whom he was working to separate the box from the coal cars, and to ride upon one of the coal-cars, probably for the purpose of pulling out the pin, and separating the box-cars behind. He started to get on the rear coal-car, put one hand on the top, and tried to put his left foot on the jaw-strap,--an iron bar running below and between the ends of the axles, out of sight under the body of the car. The jaw-strap was not there. The plaintiff's foot went onto the rail. The train was just starting, and his foot was crushed.

The jaw-strap was intended only to strengthen the car. But the coal-cars are not provided with any means for getting upon them, and the usual way in which the men got upon them was over the side, using the jaw-strap, as the plaintiff attempted to do. The jury were...