Davis v. Manry

Decision Date05 January 1925
Docket NumberNo. 147,147
Citation266 U.S. 401,45 S.Ct. 163,69 L.Ed. 350
PartiesDAVIS, Director General of Railroads, v. MANRY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. T. M. Cunningham, Jr., for Savannah, Ga., and I. J. Hofmayer, of Albany, Ga., for petitioner.

Mr. Robert Douglas Feagin, of Macon, Ga., for respondent.

Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

Action by Manry for $50,000 against the Director General of Railroads for injuries sustained while engaged in assisting the train crew of the Central of Georgia Railroad. There was a verdict and judgment for $7,500. The judgment was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals of the state. The Supreme Court of the state denied an application by the Director General for a certiorari. A petition for certiorari was granted by this court to review the judgment of the state Court of Appeals.

The action was brought against Walker D. Hines, who at the time of the injury to Manry was Director General. He was subsequently succeeded by John B. Payne, and the latter by James C. Davis, the petitioner.

Manry alleges as a ground of action that he was employed as baggageman on a train of the railroad running between Macon, Ga., and Montgomery, Ala., that it became his duty to assist the crew of the engine in coaling it, that he had stepped down from the coal chute onto the tender of the lomotive and was going back to the rear of the tender to climb down the ladder there situated so that he would be in a position at the proper time and place to adjust the couplers between the tender and the train, and to see that the coupling was duly and properly made. He alleges that, just as he was in the act of climbing over the rear of the tender, the engineer put the locomotive in motion and before he (Manry) could turn on the ladder and securely brace and hold himself thereon, and before he could reach his final destination, which was the ladder on the side of the tank, he was, by a sudden, unusual, and unnecessary jerk, thrown to the ground and the locomotive backed over him; that while he was being dragged under the engine his legs came in contact with the wheels under the tender, and both of them were mashed off at, or just below, the knee.

Negligence in operating the train is charged. Omission to equip the locomotive with the appliances required by law is also charged. To sustain the latter, it is alleged that at the rear of the tender there is a sheet-iron flange that extends up above the top thereof at an angle of about 60 degrees; the ladder on the rear of the tender does not come up and over the top of the flange, so that a person going from the top of the tender over the flange and down on the ladder has no handhold or other thing to securely hold himself, except to clamp his hands on the sheet-iron flange.

It is contended there was a violation of section 2 of the Safety Appliance Act of April 14, 1910, 36 Stat. 298 (Comp. St. § 8618), which provides that:

'All cars requiring secure ladders and secure running boards shall be equipped with such ladders and running boards, and all cars having ladders shall also be equipped with secure handholds or grabirons on their roofs at the tops of such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Carrillo v. ACF Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 27 Julio 1999
    ...(Gilvary v. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. (1934) 292 U.S. 57, 60-61, 54 S.Ct. 573, 78 L.Ed. 1123 (Gilvary ); see also Davis v. Manry (1925) 266 U.S. 401, 404-405, 45 S.Ct. 163, 69 L.Ed. 350.) As Justice Holmes succinctly explained, "The subject-matter in this instance is peculiarly one that calls for......
  • Satterlee v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 17 Abril 1935
    ... ... Ry ... Co., 64 S.W.2d 661; Patton v. Railroad Co., 179 ... U.S. 664; Lang v. Railroad Co., 255 U.S. 455, 65 ... L.Ed. 729; Davis v. Wolfe, 263 U.S. 239, 68 L.Ed ... 284; Burnett v. Railroad Co., 33 F.2d 580; Lynch ... v. Railroad Co., 58 F.2d 178; Harper v. Terminal ... 403; Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521, 69 L.Ed ... 419; Hyde v. Railroad Co., 60 S.W.2d 630; Davis ... v. Manry, 266 U.S. 401; 2 Roberts, Federal Liability of ... Carriers (2 Ed.), pp. 2048, 2049-2050. (c) If compliance with ... Interstate Commerce ... ...
  • United States v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 22 Enero 1973
    ...clothed with the legal power of interpreting its own rules and regulations and any phrases contained therein. Davis v. Manry, 266 U.S. 401, 405, 45 S.Ct. 163, 69 L.Ed. 350 (1925); Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 315, 325, 53 S.Ct. 350, 77 L.Ed. 796 (1933); Ba......
  • Alberio v. Hampton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 23 Mayo 1977
    ...phrases contained therein, this Court has found no cogent or persuasive reason to reject such interpretation. Davis v. Manry, 266 U.S. 401, 405, 45 S.Ct. 163, 69 L.Ed. 350 (1925); Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Jackson, 353 U.S. 325, 77 S.Ct. 842, 1 L.Ed.2d 862 (1957); U. S. v. American Truckin......
  • 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