Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Co. v. Rezloff

• Decision Date: 23 October 1907
• Citation: 229 Ill. 194,82 N.E. 214
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: DONK BROS. COAL & COKE CO. v. REZLOFF.

229 Ill. 194

82 N.E. 214

DONK BROS. COAL & COKE CO.

v.REZLOFF.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 23, 1907.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Fourth District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; J. E. Dunnegan, Judge.

Action by Harry Rezloff against the Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, affirmed by the Appellate Court, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Wise & McNulty, for appellant.

Brown & Geers, for appellee.

FARMER, J.

Appellee was a coal miner, and at the time of his injury, hereinafter referred to, was a driver in appellant's coal mine, and had been so engaged three days. Prior to that time he had worked in another mine in other capacities. While engaged as a driver in appellant's mine he was injured in attempting to couple cars, and brought this suit to recover damages for sald injury. The substance of the charge in the declaration is that appellee was employed by appellant in its mine at Maryville, Madison county, to drive a mule in hauling loaded cars to the bottom of the shaft and there couple cars brought in by him to other cars on the track, and that it was appellant's duty to use reasonable diligence to provide cars in a reasonably safe condition and repair for use by appellee, but that it ‘negligently permitted one of said coal cars to be and remain out of repair in this: That it permitted the bumper on one and of said car to become broken and damaged, and to become so out of repair as to permit said car to approach so near any other car adjacent to said car on said track as to cause the coupling together of said damaged car with any other car to be attended with great peril and danger,’ and that, while appellee was endeavoring to couple said damaged car to another car, said cars were precipitated together by another loaded car being rolled down the track and striking one of the cars appellee was endeavoring to couple, and by reason of the defective and insufficient bumper upon one of the cars he was endeavoring to couple, his head was caught between the two cars, and he was thereby injured. Appellee recovered a verdict and judgment in the circuit court of Madison county for $2,000. This judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Court for the Fourth District, and from that judgment appellant has appealed to this court.

The proof shows appellee, at the time of his injury, was attempting to couple the cars while standing by the side of the track and leaning over with his head between the cars and reaching over to make the coupling by means of a hook on one car and a link on the other underneath the bumpers. The bumpers were constructed of timbers fastened underneath the ends of the cars, extending their full width, and projecting out beyond the ends of the cars from 4 to 4 1/2 or 5 inches when new and in good condition. The projection of the bumpers beyond the ends of the car was not that great the full width of the car. The greatest projection was near the middle of the car, and on either side the timber was cut sloping back toward the car, so that, when the bumpers came together at the center of the cars, there was a space on either side, so they did not touch each other. Constant use wore away these bumpers, so that the space between the cars, when brought together, was thereby reduced. Appellee testified he was ordered by the boss driver to make the coupling; that the hook on one of the cars was caught in some way, so that it was turned partially upwards; and that he could not see how it was fast until he went between the cars, when his lamp...