Donnelly v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 January 1951
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 45141
• Citation: 97 N.E.2d 846,342 Ill.App. 556
• Parties: DONNELLY v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 846

97 N.E.2d 846

342 Ill.App. 556

DONNELLY v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

Gen. No. 45141.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division.

Jan. 23, 1951.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1951.

Theodore Schmidt, P. J. Cronin and Charles F. White, Chicago, Herbert C. De Young, Chicago, of counsel, for appellant.

Marion J. Hannigan, Chicago, for appellee.

SCANLAN, Justice.

Plaintiff's suit was brought under the Federal Safety Appliance Act 45 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him, an employee of The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a corporation, defendant, in its 59th street freight yard. A jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty and assessing plaintiff's damages at the sum of $65,000. Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on the verdict.

The major contention of defendant is that 'the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence and its subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The complaint charges, and the case was tried on the theory of, a violation of the Safety Appliance Act. There has been a complete failure of the necessary proof.'

'A motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict presents the single question whether there is in the record any evidence which, standing alone and taken with all its intendments most favorable to the party resisting the motion, tends to prove the material elements of his case. Gorczynski v. Nugent, 402 Ill. 147, 83 N.E.2d 495; Weinstein v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 389 Ill. 571, 60 N.E.2d 207.' Lindroth v. Walgreen Co., 407 Ill. 121, 130, 94 N.E.2d 847, 851.

Plaintiff testified that he had worked for defendant continuously from October 16, 1940, to the date of the accident; that he worked successively as a brakeman, a yard conductor or yard foreman, and as an assistant yardmaster; that on July 11, 1948, the date of the accident, he was working as a yard foreman or yard conductor at the eastbound classification yard, of defendant; that this yard is located at 59th street, about one and one-half blocks east of Western avenue, in Chicago; that the north end of the yard is at 59th street and the south end is approximately at 63rd street; that his duties required a great deal of walking, checking the train, going with the train from one yard to another; that his work entailed a great deal of physical exertion of the arms in applying and releasing the brakes, ascending and descending the cars to apply and release the brakes; that in connection with his work he had occasion to couple and uncouple freight cars; that in connection with the classification of cars there was a great deal of coupoling and uncoupling of cars; that on the day of the occurrence he had occasion to switch numerous cars back and forth in the yard, and had coupled and uncoupled cars; that on and prior to July 11, 1948, he was familiar with the mechanical make-up of coupling devices on railroad cars; that a coupling device on a railroad car is composed of the drawbar itself, which extends underneath the car and is fastened to the framework of the car by cross pins through the framework and through the drawbar; that the operating end of the drawbar consists of a movable side, called the knuckle, and the stationary side called the jaw; that the movable knuckle has an opening motion of approximately 90 degrees; that in its open position the knuckle will point approximately straight ahead of the center line of the cars and in its closed position the knuckle presents a flat surface, leaving a space between the edge of the knuckle and the edge of the jaw sufficient to admit the opposing knuckle; that this locking mechanism is operated or controlled by a device which is called the pin lifter, which extends to the outside of the car, and by the operation of the pin lifter, the lock is so actuated that from a closed position the knuckle is normally forced to an open position; that there was also lateral motion in the drawbar which must be sufficient to allow the cars to 'break' around a curve; that this lateral motion is limited by a buffer spring or a snubber spring on the cross pins; that when the drawbar is moved from side to side it comes in contact with and operates against the springs; that the function of these springs is to return the drawbar to its center position when it is moved from side to side; that there is sufficient room left in the opening between the knuckle and the jaw of one coupler to allow the entrance of the opposing knuckle, but if the drawbar on one car is out of position--to one side, the drawbar will pass completely by, or if the two jaws are opposed there will be no coupling effected, because the movable parts of the drawbars are outside of the opening where they would be locked by the locking mechanism; that at the time of his injury he and his crew were engaged in making up an eastbound combined freight train known as 88-82 or a CG8-88; that he was told by Reitz, the assistant yardmaster, to make up this combined train on track 6; that one car was picked up on track 13 and then the crew went in on track 12 and picked up some more, about seven more; that after these cars were coupled plaintiff walked toward the south end of the yard to throw the switch on track 6, so that a waiting road engine could get into the track and pull out the cars; that it was quite dark in the yard and he was carrying a lantern; that after throwing the switch he went to the last car on track 6 and was about to cross over when he noticed the angle cock on the last car on track 6 was open; that an angle cock is the device which operates a value in the air brake system of a train, and that he closed that angle cock and walked west to the other side of track 6 where he operated the pin lifter on the south end of the south car to open the knuckle on that particular car in order to make it convenient for the road engine to make a connection with the first car of the train; that he then proceeded north between tracks 6 and 7 and was then examining the coupling of the cars to make certain that they were coupled; that the coupling between the southernmost car and the one immediately north of it was apparently made and he then proceeded to the next car when he noticed that the coupling was not made; that the north drawbar of the second car was in a closed position; that the knuckle had been knocked over to a closed position; that the knuckle on the south end of the north car, the third car, was also in a closed position and to the west of the center line; that the center of the drawbar was to the west of the center line about three or four inches; that when a drawbar is in that position it will not couple automatically by impact because the solid side of the draw bar, the jaw, would strike the closed face of the knuckle on the south car; that if a coupling device is in proper working order the drawbar centers itself; that he was not provided with any tools of any kind to use in connection with the aligning of drawbars or opening knuckles on couplers; that he looked to the north and saw no moving cars or lights and heard no movement of any kind of cars or engines in the yard; that he then put his foot across the drawbar on the south of the third car, held on to the grab irons and hand holds on the south end of this northern car and the north end of the southern car; that he had one hand on the grab iron of each car; that when he was in that position some part of his body was between the ends of the cars; that there was no mechanical device on that car that would enable him to align the drawbar without getting his body between the ends of the cars; that when drawbars are out of alignment they are put into alignment by the operation of physical strength applied in two ways--that the more common way when a car is standing by itself would be to back up to the drawbar, hook your hands underneath it, lift it, and swing it into position, but in a case like this, where you would have the other car to hold on to, it is much more common to use the force of a leg to shove the drawbar over; that after he took hold of the two grab irons he put his right foot against the drawbar and had his knee in a bent position; that he then straightened out his leg and shoved the drawbar over; that at that moment there was a loud crash and violent movement of the cars and he was knocked to the ground. Plaintiff also testified that the car in question was on a straight track at the time of the accident.

F. P. McKim, special duty yardmaster for defendant, and a witness for defendant, testified that 'in coupling up a train, it is necessary that the drawbars be in alignment in order for them to couple. The drawbars will not couple automatically by impact unless they are in proper alignment. When the drawbar has been put in proper alignment by pushing it, or otherwise, then they will couple automatically by impact. * * * Before a coupling operation can be made, it is necessary to align the drawbars if they are out of line.'

Edward R. Youngman, foreman in charge of inspectors at the yard in question, was a witness for defendant. He testified upon direct examination as follows:

'Q. Now, what is this part here called? * * * A. That is the shank of the coupler, what is commonly called a shank of the coupler or drawbar, in ordinary language.

'Q. Now this slot, as I call it, that that shank fits in, what is that called? * * * A. That opening is formed by--it is made for the purpose of upholding or holding the coupler in place and also has sufficient room to permit that coupler to go sideways, and also to go a certain degree inward when it contacts another car.

'Q. How much play or how much space is there on each side of that drawbar for it to go sideways? A. An inch and a half, the total space. In other words, it goes three quarters either way.

'Q. Three-quarters of an inch? A. ...