Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Arrighi

• Decision Date: 10 November 1905
• Docket Number: 2,227.
• Citation: 141 F. 67
• Parties: DENVER & R.G.R. CO. v. ARRIGHI.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

141 F. 67

DENVER & R.G.R. CO. v. ARRIGHI.

No. 2,227.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

November 10, 1905

Arrighi sued the railroad company to recover damages for an injury to his hand, caused as he alleges by the negligence of the company in not equipping its cars as provided by section 2 of the act of Congress of March 2, 1893 (27 Stat. 531, c. 196 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174), relating to automatic couplers. In support of his case Arrighi introduced evidence which was undisputed by the company, showing the following facts: While in the employ of the railway company as a switchman, and on the 19th day of November, at Salida, Colo Arrighi was injured while endeavoring to effect a coupling of two narrow gauge freight cars, one of which was at the time employed in moving interstate traffic. Neither car was equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact. The drawbars of each were equipped with link and pin couplings. It therefore became necessary for Arrighi to go between the ends of the cars in the performance of his duties. Arrighi entered the employ of the railroad company November 12, 1901 and the seven days intervening between this date and the date of his injury was all the experience he ever had with link and pin couplings and as switchman. He was 32 years of age and had worked for seven or eight years for the Rock Island Railway Company as brakeman on passenger trains, but said trains did not use the link and pin coupling. He testified upon this matter as follows: 'I went over and set my pin on the coupling at the end of a string of cars that was standing still, then I stepped back and gave the signal for the engineer to come ahead for me to make my coupling. The link was in the moving car coming towards me. I took hold of the link as the car approached to guide it, and when I got the link in the coupling my hand was caught, and I could not possibly get my hand out. I tried to get my hand out at the earliest time possible. It was necessary to raise the link in order to have it go into the drawhead on the standing car. ' There was no evidence whatever that Arrighi was in any wise negligent in the way he made the coupling unless the fact that he was injured is such evidence. Upon this state of facts the railroad company moved the trial court at the close of plaintiff's evidence to direct the jury to return a verdict in its favor, which motion was refused, and an exception taken to such ruling.

William W. Field (Joel F. Vaile and Charles W. Waterman, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

William L. Dayton and Harvey Riddell, for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and PHILIPS and CARLAND, District judges.

CARLAND District Judge, after stating the facts as above, .

This case was before this court on writ of error at a previous term of this court, and the judgment therein was reversed and a new trial ordered. Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Arrighi, 129 F. 347, 63 C.C.A. 649. A new trial having been had, the case is again here on exception to the ruling of the trial court in refusing to direct a verdict for the railroad company. At the prior hearing of the case this court was of the opinion that a verdict ought to have been directed for the railroad company on account of the contributory negligence of the defendant in error. If the facts shown by the present record are the same as on the former hearing, the decision then made is the law of the case, and the judgment now sought to be reviewed must be reversed in accordance therewith. The evidence introduced at the first trial is not before us, except as it appears from the opinion of the court. We are convinced from an examination of the opinion that the evidence introduced at the second trial could not have been the same as that introduced on the first for the following reasons:...