Fish v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 19 December 1914 |
Docket Number | No. 16788.,16788. |
Citation | 172 S.W. 340 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | FISH v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. |
Action by Millie Fish against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The plaintiff is the widow and administratrix of Norman G. Fish, and sues to recover damages under the federal Employers' Liability Act, as amended in 1910, for his death on January 15, 1909, at Princeton, Mercer county, Mo. The petition was filed the 21st of September, 1910, and alleges, in substance:
"That on the date of his death said Norman G. Fish was employed as a head brakeman of a freight train by the defendant railroad company, which was an interstate carrier and engaged at the time in interstate commerce. That
Before answering said petition, the defendant filed a petition to remove the same to the federal court on the ground of diverse citizenship, and on the further ground that it involved the construction of an amendment (April 5, 1910) of the federal Employers' Liability Act, and executed bond for removal. The petition for removal being denied, the defendant answered, in substance: That the deceased husband of the plaintiff had been long in defendant's employ as a freight brakeman, and had full knowledge of the location of the said water crane, and negligently assumed such a position on the side of the car and placed his body from such a distance that his injuries and death were caused by his own negligence directly contributing thereto and his assumption of the risks of such a collision. That the deceased carried and was familiar with a time-table, and also with certain rules prescribed by defendant for its employés, and, among others, the following:
"All employés are hereby notified that there are coal chutes, platform, and other structures, located on the main line and on sidings, also structures and platforms belonging to private corporations and persons, located on industrial sidings and spurs, that will not clear a man riding on the side of a car, and all employés must protect themselves from injury in passing such structures."
The answer...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schaum v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
...of contributory negligence. Gailus v. Pauly Jail Bldg. Co., 282 S.W. 127; Williams v. Pryor, 272 Mo. 613, 200 S.W. 53; Fish v. Ry. Co., 263 Mo. 125, 172 S.W. 340; Charlton v. Railroad Co., 200 Mo. 413; Curtis McNair, 173 Mo. 270; Phippin v. Railroad Co., 196 Mo. 321; Jewell v. Bolt & Nut Co......
-
State v. Colson
...v. State, 126 Ind.App. 535, 134 N.E.2d 822; City of New Orleans v. Vinci, 153 La. 528, 96 So. 110, 28 A.L.R. 1382; Fish v. Chicago R.I. & P. Ry., 263 Mo. 106, 172 S.W. 340; Going v. Going, 148 Tenn. 522, 256 S.W. 890, 31 A.L.R. 633. In 'by-pass' states, involvement of a substantial constitu......
-
Littig v. Urbauer-Atwood Heating Co.
...incident to his task, after the employer has used ordinary care to provide him with a reasonably safe place in which to work. Fish v. Railway, 263 Mo. 106." It was not contended by plaintiff in his petition, nor in the instructions given in his behalf, that the east wall of the ditch or tre......
-
McIntyre v. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co.
...R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 210 Ill. 226, 71 N. E. 328; Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Beckett, 163 Fed. 479, 90 C. C. A. 25; Fish v. Railroad, 263 Mo. 106, 172 S. W. 340, Ann. Cas. 1916B, If, however, the necessities of the railroad company, in properly conducting its business, requires an obstru......