Earley v. Hall

• Decision Date: 27 July 1915
• Citation: 95 A. 2
• Parties: EARLEY v. HALL.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

95 A. 2

EARLEY

v. HALL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 27, 1915.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Lucien F. Burpee, Judge.

Action by Michael J. Earley against Robert H. Hall, for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while he was a brakeman. The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that his injuries were caused solely by the neglect of the defendant in allowing a piece of timber with a rusty nail to remain in close proximity to the side track where Earley was obliged to work, failure to make reasonable inspection of his premises, and in failing to notify the plaintiff of the existence of the dangerous obstruction so that he might avoid it. It is also averred in the complaint that the plaintiff was upon the premises in question by the permission and license given to his employer, the railroad company.

The following facts were undisputed: In July, 1912, the plaintiff was in the employ of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company as a brakeman upon a freight train. While so employed, it became necessary for him to go upon a certain spur or side track of the railroad company, which was constructed for some distance upon railroad property and the remainder upon the defendant's land. It was used for railroad purposes by the railroad company. This included the storage of cars, transportation of trains, and switching operations. The defendant used it for storing cars consigned to him and in loading and unloading cars from and into his warehouse. Upon the day in question, the train had come from the east, and, on reaching this place, the engine, tender, and two cars were backed on this side track. It was there coupled with six or seven other cars. It then backed farther along this side track for the purpose of picking up a car of railroad ties. This car stood on the track still farther in an easterly direction and upon a portion of the spur track which was upon the defendant's land. Still further to the east there stood another car of grain which belonged to the defendant. The defendant's car had been "spotted" or located in front of his warehouse. The train was backed up against the car of ties with such force as to push it eastward in a violent manner against the defendant's car, which was displaced from the track. As a result of this collision, the couplings failed to connect. The plaintiff was assisting in replacing the defendant's car when injured.

The parties were at issue as to the precise manner in which the accident occurred. The plaintiff claimed and offered evidence to show that the displacement of the car was a common incident in switching operations. The defendant claimed and offered evidence to show that the derailment of this car resulted from the negligence of the members of the train crew of the railroad company. The plaintiff contended that he was injured in the act of going forward upon the ground at a point just opposite the defendant's warehouse where he had gone for the purpose of adjusting couplings between the cars. The defendant offered evidence to show that the plaintiff was standing upon the top of one of the freight cars, and that he was frightened by the force with which the cars came together and jumped from the car, upon the nail and plank. The plaintiff offered evidence to show that this plank was lying upon the ground at a place where, in the ordinary course of switching operations, one might reasonably be expected to step. The defendant offered evidence to show that it was not necessary for the plaintiff, in the proper performance of his work, to go so far from the spur track upon the defendant's property as the spot where the plank was lying.

Certain rights and duties of the parties as to the construction and use of this spur track are set forth in a written agreement, which, among other things, provides that:

"Said railroad company at their own expense are to furnish iron and ties and lay the track and prepare the roadbed on their premises. Said Hall at his own expense is to prepare the roadbed on his own premises and to fill in south of said spur on a grade uniform with the new grade of said spur to a width reasonably necessary for the convenience of teams in loading and unloading from cars standing on said spur and to make any changes which may be required in the grade of the highway crossing said spur. The railroad company to have the right to use said spur so extended in switching and other railroad purposes, but are not to use the portion built on land of said Hall in any way which will interfere with his convenience or impede him or his successors and assigns in the transaction of their business."

George E. Beers and James J. Palmer, both of New Haven, for appellant. Gustaf B. Carlson and Charles W. Cramer, both of Middletown, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. (after stating the facts as above). Numerous errors are assigned. Those which were pursued in argument will receive our consideration. The court was requested to instruct the jury that:

"The defendant concedes that the land upon which the extension of the spur track was built was cither owned or controlled by him, and that he allowed the use of it by the railroad company. Under these circumstances, a duty to exercise care with reference to the condition of the premises devolved upon the defendant. If the defendant failed to exercise the care with reference to the condition of the premises which an ordinarily careful man would exercise under the circumstances, and if, without contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff suffered an injury because of such lack of care on the part of the defendant, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If the defendant allowed the use of the premises in question for railroad purposes, it impliedly allowed such use of them as is ordinarily involved in the railroad operations incident to the use of the premises; and if the plaintiff, in assisting in the operations of a train, suffered an injury arising out of the negligence of the defendant, and was himself free from contributory negligence, your verdict should be for the plaintiff."

These requests, when taken by themselves, are nothing more than a statement that a person's duty when the owner of land or a building, who has it in charge, is to be careful and diligent in keeping it safe for those who come there by his invitation, express or implied. This case presents no such situation. The railroad company was in control of the entire right of way, including the defendant's land for railroad purposes. The only limitation upon its rights, so far as the defendant was concerned, was that it should not so use the defendant's property as to in any manner interfere with his business. This...