Elkins v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 October 1895 |
| Docket Number | 200 |
| Citation | 171 Pa. 121,33 A. 74 |
| Parties | Frederick Elkins v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 11, 1895
Appeal, No. 200, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1892, No. 802, on verdict for plaintiff. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries.
At the trial it appeared that on October 11, 1890, plaintiff was injured while engaged in shifting cars in the yard of the Atlantic Refining Company, at Point Breeze, Philadelphia. He was a brakeman in the employ of defendant, and was one of a crew sent to the refining company's yard to shift cars. The assistant superintendent of the refining company directed what cars should be shifted and where they should be placed. In the course of his work plaintiff set his foot upon an iron stirrup placed on freight cars to enable brakemen to mount the car. The stirrup was out of repair, and under the pressure of plaintiff's foot the step flew from under him, and his foot fell upon the track and was run over by the wheel of the car.
The court charged in part as follows:
[If the defendant railroad company go on the premises of another person or corporation to draw or shift cars, their duty is to see that the cars used are in a proper condition to be used in the way that the work to be done requires.
If such work requires a brakeman to jump on the cars when in motion by means of the step alluded to in the evidence, then it was the duty of the railroad company to see that the step was not a trap that would lure one to danger. This duty is not altered by reason of the company sending a locomotive and crew to the refining company's yard to do such shifting or moving of cars as the refining company's superintendent should direct.]
Defendant's points were as follows:
2. If the jury believe that the car from which the plaintiff fell and on which the step or stirrup is alleged to have been loose or otherwise defective, did not belong to the defendant, then under all the circumstances as they appear in evidence the defendant would not be responsible for the accident, and the verdict should be for it. Answer: Refused [2]
3. It does not appear from the evidence in the cause that the defendant owed any duty to the plaintiff touching the repair of the car from which he fell, or in reference to keeping it in good order. This being the case the verdict should be for the defendant. Answer: Refused. [3]
4. Under all the evidence in the case the verdict must be for the defendant. Answer: Refused. [4]
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $5,500. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were (1-4) above instructions, quoting them.
Judgment affirmed.
Geo. Tucker Bispham, for appellant. -- There is no presumption in this case of negligence on the part of the brakeman's employer by the mere happening of the accident: Erie & Wyoming Val. R.R. v. Smith, 125 Pa. 259.
It is unreasonable to require a railroad company to regularly inspect and repair the cars of other corporations at times when and in places where the cars are not under their control, for that would be requiring more than ordinary care: Mensch v. Pa. R.R., 150 Pa. 598; Rehm v. P.R.R. and W.L. Scott & Co., 164 Pa. 91; Anderson v. Oliver, 138 Pa. 156.
There was under the circumstances of this case no duty owed by the railroad company to this plaintiff which it failed to discharge: Trinity & Sabine Ry. v. Lane, 79 Tex. 643; Trask v. Old Colony R.R., 156 Mass. 298.
A. S. L. Shields, for appellee. -- The company was bound to inspect the cars which it handled: Patterson's Railway Accident Law, 309; Gottlieb v. N.Y., L.E. & W.R.R., 100 N.Y. 462; O'Neill v. R.R., 9 F. 337; Jetter v. R.R., 2 Abb. Ct. App. N.Y. 458; Jones v. R.R., 28 Hun., N.Y. 364; Miller v. N.Y.C. & H.R.R., 99 N.Y. 657; Goodrich v. N.Y.C. & H.R.R., 116 N.Y. 398; Gottlieb v. R.R., 1 Cent. Rep. (N.Y.) 728; Fay v. R.R., 15 N.W. 241; Bomar v. Louisiana N. & S.R., 8 So. 478; Johnson v. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 4 S.E. 432; 2 Railroad Corporation Law Jour. 257; Reynolds v. Boston & M.R.R., 24 A. 134.
It is apparent that the only negligence that the appellant could be convicted of was using a defective car any where in the course of its business without first inspecting and repairing. It was the giving to the appellee of a defective and dangerous appliance to use that creates the liability here.
Before GREEN, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM, DEAN and FELL, JJ.
The plaintiff was injured while in the service of the defendant company as a brakeman. The injury he received was due to a defect in the step of a freight car on which he was attempting to get, in the performance of the duties of his employment. It is settled by the verdict that no fault of his contributed in producing it. The car belonged to and was in the yard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schultz v. Bear Creek Refining Co.
...Co., 95 Pa. 211; Phila., Wil. & Balto. R.R. Co. v. Keenan, 103 Pa. 124; McCombs v. Pitts burg & Western Ry. Co., 130 Pa. 182; Elkins v. Penna. R.R. Co., 171 Pa. 121. constitutes negligence in a given case is generally a question for the jury: Fisher v. Monongahela Ry., 131 Pa. 292; Bucklin ......
-
Dominices v. Monongahela Connecting R. Co.
...in the Dooner and Rick cases, or -- at least in the case of an injury to one of its own employees -- belonged to a private owner, as in the Elkins case. The reason is, that when a company hauls a over its lines, it thereby, in theory, adopts it as part of its own equipment, irrespective of ......