Coleman's Admr. v. Pittsburg C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1901 |
| Citation | 139 Ky. 559 |
| Parties | Coleman's Admr. v. Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. R'y Co. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Common Pleas Division).
Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. — Affirmed.
JOHN I. CALLOWAY and JOHN C. MILLER for appellant.
CHARLES H. GIBSON for appellee.
The decedent, John K. Coleman, was employed by appellee as a crossing flagman on Rowan street between 14th and 15th streets in Louisville. On the 10th of May, 1895, he was killed by one of appellee's freight trains striking him at the crossing at which he was employed. There were a number of tracks, half dozen or more, crossing Rowan street at this point, and it was the duty of the decedent to notice all approaching trains and to give warning to those traveling the street at that point to prevent accidents. It was a primary requirement of decedent's service, that he should be in such necessary position as to enable him to see each and every train approaching that crossing upon any of the tracks of appellee, and thereupon to give notice by proper signal to such persons as might be then attempting to use the street at that point. At the time of decedent's death he had just signalled to the driver of a wagon that a train was approaching the crossing. This train was probably the one that struck the decedent. It was a locomotive coupled on to eight or ten cars and which was backing across Rowan street south to couple on to other cars at that point. The rear brakeman had crossed the street, and gone on south (evidently to prepare for the coupling), the street running practically east and west. The front brakeman was on the opposite side of the train to decedent and toward the front. The conductor was making a coupling between two of the cars and therefore out of sight at the time of the accident. By reason of a curve and obstruction of buildings the fireman's position was out of sight of the place of accident, and the engineer was on the opposite side.
It is complained for appellant, that the negligence in this case was the absence of some one on the rear of the train to give warning to decedent of its approach, and his consequent danger. The train is shown to have been moving cautiously and slowly and it was not suggested that there was any absence of the usual signals, the ringing of bell. The sole question of negligence, as we gather it, is that of the absence of a brakeman or some person on the rear of the backing train at the time of the injury. It may be accepted without argument that a railroad company owes a different duty to its servants engaged in operating its trains from that it owes to its passengers or the public. That the absence of some one at the rear of the train at the point of crossing to give warning of the train's approach so as to prevent injury to those using the street at that point would have been negligence so far as the public was...
To continue reading
Request your trial