Goulin v. Canada Southern Bridge Co.

• Decision Date: 13 January 1887
• Citation: 31 N.W. 44,64 Mich. 190
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: GOULIN v. CANADA SOUTHERN BRIDGE CO.

31 N.W. 44

64 Mich. 190

GOULIN v. CANADA SOUTHERN BRIDGE CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 13, 1887

Error to Wayne.

Action by railroad employe for damages against a railroad company for injuries sustained through defendant's negligence. Verdict for defendant by direction. Plaintiff appeals.

C.J. Reilly, for plaintiff and appellant.

Henry Russell, for defendant.

MORSE J.

In this case the court below directed a verdict for the defendant. The sole issue in this court stands upon the correctness of this ruling.

The plaintiff lives in Trenton, and, at the time of his injury was 30 years of age. He had worked in the stock-yards at Grosse Isle for the defendant about a year. His duty there was to unload stock from the cars, feed them, and reload them. The switchmen, with a pony engine, would bring the cars containing the stock to him. He had worked also at the same business in the stock-yards in the city of Detroit. He had been employed in all about two years. The stock-yards were in the railroad yards of the defendant. On the twelfth day of November, 1882, he was set to work by an agent of defendant as second switchman in making up trains in the yard, shifting cars with a pony engine in the railroad yard at Grosse Isle. He had no experience in switching at the time of this employment. The yard-master hired him on Saturday evening and told him he would show him how to do the work. He did show him the next day, but said nothing to him about a defective drawhead in the engine, which plaintiff claims was the cause of the injury. The front draw-head of the engine was a perfect one, but the one at the rear was defective. It was a double draw-head; the division between the upper and lower openings had a V or wedge shaped piece broken out, so that upon a casual glance it looked like a single opening. The plaintiff went to work with this engine on Monday, November 13th, and did day duty that week. This engine had no tender attached, and no cow-catcher. It was used in pulling cars in the yard, and would be coupled to them at both ends. The two divisions in the draw-heads were used to meet the heights of different cars without crooked links. Plaintiff's day duty consisted in following this engine, and doing as he was ordered in opening and shutting switches or coupling cars. The cars were mostly coupled, however, by the head switchman, known as the conductor. During such day duty plaintiff testifies that he coupled cars in front,--on the front part of the engine,--but made no coupling at the rear end, where this defective draw-head was situated. He had never examined that draw-head, and did not know that it was defective,--supposed it to be all right.

On the night of November 19, 1882, he was switching in the yard. About 11 o'clock the yard-master directed him to go to switch No. 1, and draw out a car. He went, and, in coupling the car to the rear end of the engine, got his hand caught in this defective opening, or break in the division between the two openings, and crushed, losing three fingers, and otherwise maiming the hand. He says he stood upon the tail-board or foot-board of the engine. He had a lantern in one hand, had set the pin up in the draw-bar, and signaled the engine to back. As the car came up, without looking at the draw-head particularly, he undertook to enter the link. He claims it caught in this broken wedge-shaped place. The force of the engine twisted it sideways, and caught his hand. He had never before looked at the end of this draw-bar; and, when he endeavored to make the coupling, says: "I didn't look at the draw-bar. I supposed it was all right. Question. If you had looked for it, you could have seen it? Answer. I couldn't see it from the step. You couldn't have seen it unless you had looked right into the draw-bar. *** Q. You say you had every reason to suppose that the draw-head was all right? A. Yes, sir. Q. So you didn't care to see for yourself? A. No, sir. Q. Then you gave the signal to move back? A. Yes, sir. Q. If you had an opinion that there was a break in the draw-head, you might have made the coupling, and not been hurt? A. Yes, sir; if I had known about it, I would have looked out for it." On redirect examination he further testified: "Question. You could have made this coupling without any accident if you had known of the break? Answer. If I had known of it,--that there was danger,--I should have looked out for it,--if I had known it was broke." Plaintiff also testified that he could not look into the draw-bar from where he stood when coupling, and that this was the first time he had attempted a coupling at this end of the engine.

John Dougherty, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that he was employed in the yard at the time of the injury to the plaintiff, and was familiar with this engine and draw-bar and that the yard-master and conductor knew it was broken; that witness knew it was broken a month before the accident. On cross-examination he said the break could be seen as one looked at the draw-head; that...