Cryder v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1907 |
| Docket Number | 2,440. |
| Citation | 152 F. 417 |
| Parties | CRYDER v. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
The failure of a master or of his inspectors to discover and remove latent defects, which the exercise of ordinary care would not discover, in the place, articles, or machinery with which his servant works, is not negligence on their part because the discovery and removal of such defects falls beyond the limits of their duty to exercise reasonable care.
The servant assumes the risk of the latent defects in the place articles, and machinery with which he works, which the ordinary care of the master to make and keep the place articles, and machinery reasonably safe fails to discover and remove.
Evidence in actions for negligence that the injury was caused by the defendant's want of reasonable care, or by a latent defect, or by some other thing for which he is not responsible, is insufficient, because the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the injury resulted directly from the negligence of the defendant.
A conductor was descending a ladder on the end of one of the cars of his moving train, when one end of one of the rounds gave way, and he fell and was injured. The car had been cornered, and this was one of five of the six rounds of the ladder which had been bent. The defendant had provided inspectors to examine this and other cars at the station at which the conductor took this train and to cause defects in them to be remedied. After the accident one end of the wood screw which fastened the round which gave way was found newly broken at a point from an inch to an inch and a half within the wood of the car.
W. S. Roark (Lee Monroe and W. F. Schoch, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Paul E. Walker (M. A. Low, on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before SANBORN, HOOK, and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff was a conductor in the employment of the defendant, a railroad company. About midnight on July 5, 1903, he took his train at Horton, in the state of Kansas. After he had passed two or three stations he went forward on the top of the train until he came to a furniture car. He then attempted to descend on a ladder made of iron rounds about three-quarters of an inch in diameter fastened to the end of this car by wood screws, and, as he placed his hand or foot upon one of them, one end of it gave way, he fell, and was injured by the moving train. The company had furnished inspectors at Horton whose duty it was to examine this and other cars before they were delivered to the conductors and to use reasonable care to cause those found dangerously defective to be repaired. The furniture car had been cornered, and five of the six rounds of the ladder from which the plaintiff fell had been bent. After the accident one end of one of the rounds of the ladder was found to be loose and hanging by the other end. In the loose end of this round was one end of a wood screw, which had fastened it to the car, newly broken. This screw was about four inches long, and it had broken from an inch to an inch and a half within the wood of the car. Upon this state of facts the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence, and this ruling is challenged by the writ.
When one brings an action for damages on account of the negligence of the defendant, he assumes the burden of proving that the defendant was guilty of some breach of duty which caused the injury. The primary legal presumption in such a case is that the defendant and all who were charged with the performance of any part of his duty as a master have properly discharged their respective duties; that the defendant has exercised reasonable care to provide ordinarily safe cars, engines, and rails, and to furnish competent inspectors to examine and keep them in a reasonably safe condition; and that these inspectors have properly discharged their duty.
The breach of duty upon which the plaintiff relied in this case was the alleged failure of the inspectors at Horton to carefully examine and by that examination to discover, and cause a remedy of the defects in the screw, the break of which caused the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canadian Northern Ry. Co. v. Senske
... ... Co. v ... Behymer, 189 U.S. 468, 23 Sup.Ct. 622, 47 L.Ed. 905, and ... Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Moore, 166 ... F. 663, 92 C.C.A. 357, 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 962, in ... 548, 550; Lake v. Shenango Furnace ... Co., 160 F. 887, 895, 88 C.C.A. 69, 77; Cryder v ... Chic. R.I. & Pac. Ry. Co., 152 F. 417, 418, 81 C.C.A ... 559, 560; Chicago Great Western ... ...
-
Cruce v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
...does not apply as between master and servant. 201 F. 637; 138 Ill.App. 131; 229 F. 559; 181 F. 91; 67 C. C. A. 421; 132 F. 593; 139 F. 737; 152 F. 417. Conjecture is unsound and unjust foundation for a verdict. 98 C. C. A. 281; 174 F. 377; 76 C. C. A. 201; 145 F. 327; 105 Wis. 311; 148 Pa. ......
-
FW Martin & Co. v. Cobb
...Shandrew v. C. St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 142 F. 320, 323; Latting v. Owasso Mfg. Co., 8 Cir., 148 F. 369; Cryder v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 152 F. 417; Midland Valley Ry. Co. v. Fulgham, 8 Cir., 181 F. 91, L.R.A.1917E, 1; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Manning, 8 Cir., 81 F.2d......
-
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Manning
...Union Pac. R. Co. v. Marone (C.C.A.8) 246 F. 916; H. D. Williams Cooperage Co. v. Headrick (C.C.A.8) 159 F. 680; Cryder v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (C.C.A.8) 152 F. 417. This duty was a continuing one, which could not be discharged for all time by furnishing in the first instance a reaso......