Coyne v. Union Pac Ry Co

Decision Date03 March 1890
Citation133 U.S. 370,33 L.Ed. 651,10 S.Ct. 382
PartiesCOYNE v. UNION PAC. RY. CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

E. T. Wells, for plaintiff in error.

John F. Dillon, for defendant in error.

BLATCHFORD, J.

James Coyne brought an action in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Colorado, against the Union Pacific Railway Company, to recover damages for a personal injury After issue joined, the case was tried by a jury. The court instructed the jury to find the issues for the defendant, to which instruction the plaintiff excepted. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff has brought a writ of error The bill of exceptions sets forth that the plaintiff gave evidence tending to show the following facts: On and before the 18th of May, 1882, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defn dant as a laborer or construction hand, under one McCormick, construction boss or foreman of the defendant. McCormick had authority to control and direct, and compel obedience of, the plaintiff, and also, in his discretion, to discharge the plaintiff or any other servant of the defendant working under his direction and control. While employed by the orders of McCormick, the plaintiff, with the other servants and sectionmen of the defendant, went upon its construction train, which was under the control and direction of McCormick, to a place between two stations on its railroad, known, respectively, as 'Byers' and 'River Bend,' about two miles east from Byers' station, and at such place the plaintiff and the other servants were commanded by McCormick to load upon a certain flat-car in the construction train about 40 steel rails, which were then lying near the track of the railroad. The plaintiff and the other employes of the defendant proceeded to load the rails on the flat-car, as directed by McCormick, and under his orders, he directing the labor of the plaintiff and the other servants. Each of the rails was from 24 to 29 feet long, and weighed from 400 to 600 pounds. To lift one of them, the labors of about 10 men were required; and the plaintiff and the other servants under the command of McCormick were divided into two gangs, of 10 or more men each. In loading the rails, each of the gangs was required and directed by McCormick to act in concert, and to lay hold of and lift the rail, and walk with it to the flat-car, and there halt, dress, and, at the word of command given by McCormick, lift the rail, and cast it, with one motion, on the floor of the flat-car. By reason of the length and great weight of the rails, it was necessary, in loading them upon flat-cars, that, in order to avoid injury to the workmen engaged, care, deliberation, and concert of action should be observed, and that some person should give the word of command in each of the several stages of progress in loading them, and particularly at the point when the rail was to be thrown upon the car. Prior to the injury complained of, McCormick had controlled and directed the men in loading the rails, and the plaintiff supposed that, in loading the last rail, the one which hurt him, the same course would be pursued by McCormick. Neither at such place nor nearer than Byers' station was there any siding or switch. When all but three or four of the rails were loaded upon the flat-car, the regular freight train of the defendant appeared, rapidly approaching from the east. McCormick thereupon, with violent oaths and imprecations, urged the plaintiff and the other men of the party to make haste and complete the loading of the rails, so...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • English v. Roberts, Johnson & Rand Shoe Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 16, 1909
    ... ... 122 Ill.App. 454; Herold v. Pfister, 92 Wis. 417; ... Ruchinsky v. French, 168 Mass. 68; Wanner v ... Kindel, 4 Colo.App. 168; Coyne v. Railroad, 133 ... U.S. 370; Stephens v. Lumber Co., 110 Mo.App. 398 ... (c) The physical facts show that respondent was not injured ... while ... ...
  • Chandler v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • December 2, 1907
    ... ... courts: Railroad v. Dye, 70 F. 24; Railroad v ... Waters, 70 F. 28; Thom v. Pittard, 62 F. 232; ... Tomlinson v. Railroad, 97 F. 252; Coyne v ... Railroad, 133 U.S. 370; Railroad v. Baugh, 149 ... U.S. 368; Railroad v. Hambly, 154 U.S. 349; Railroad ... v. Charless, 162 U.S. 359; ... ...
  • Regan v. Parker-Washington Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • April 15, 1913
    ... ... The ... first case arising in the Supreme Court of the United States ... and involving this doctrine was in 1873, Union Pacific ... Railroad Co. v. Fort, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 553, 21 L.Ed ... 739, opinion by Mr. Justice Davis. A boy was employed as a ... helper or ... 313, 4 Sup.Ct. 433, 28 L.Ed. 440, ... plaintiff stepped upon the end of an unsupported beam on a ... building being constructed. Coyne v. Union Pacific, ... 133 U.S. 370, 10 Sup.Ct. 382, 33 L.Ed. 651, a careless ... instruction caused injury from lifting a rail. Quebec Co ... ...
  • Chandler v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 2, 1907
    ...C. A. 609; Thom v. Pittard, 62 Fed. 232, 10 C. C. A. 352; Tomlinson v. Railroad, 97 Fed. 252, 38 C. C. A. 148; Coyne v. Railway, 133 U. S. 370, 10 Sup. Ct. 382, 33 L. Ed. 651; Railway Company v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368, 13 Sup. Ct. 914, 37 L. Ed. 772; Railroad v. Hambly, 154 U S. 349, 14 Sup. ......
  • 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