Great Northern Railway Company v. Knapp

• Decision Date: 20 March 1916
• Docket Number: No. 690,690
• Citation: 60 L.Ed. 745,240 U.S. 464,36 S.Ct. 399
• Parties: GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. O. B. KNAPP
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

240 U.S. 464

36 S.Ct. 399

60 L.Ed. 745

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v O. B. KNAPP.

No. 690.

Argued February 24, 1916.

Decided March 20, 1916.

Messrs. A. L. Janes, M. L. Countryman, and E. C. Lindley for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Tom Davis, Ernest A. Michel, and John I. Davis for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court:

This action was brought under the Federal employers' liability act. The plaintiff (defendant in error) was the station agent at Dassel, Minnesota. It was a part of his duty to attend the pump house some distance from the station, once or twice a day, and keep filled the water tank for locomotives. The water was pumped by means of a gasolene engine, and the pump and engine were in a small room. In proceeding to start the pump at the time in question, the plaintiff's arm was caught in the clutch of the engine and cut off. As the supreme court of the state put it, the plaintiff claimed that 'he lost his balance, either through a slip upon the greasy floor or a jerk by his coat being drawn into the fly wheel or shaft, and in striking out to catch himself his hand and part of the arm came between the crank of the shaft and top of the hood which partially but inadequately guarded it.' The state court deemed the evidence to be 'very clear' that it was practicable to interpose safeguards 'so as to fully protect from danger those who had to pass by.' The plaintiff alleged negligence in his employer, in failing to provide suitable protection; the company denied negligence and insisted upon the defense of assumption of risk. The trial court held that upon the evidence these questions were for the jury, and there was a verdict for the plaintiff. On motion, a new trial was ordered unless the plaintiff should remit a portion of the damages, and, this being done, judgment was entered, which was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 130 Minn. 405, 153 N. W. 848.

It was conceded that when the injury was received, plaintiff was engaged in work pertaining to the defendant's business as a common carrier in interstate commerce, and that the Federal act applied. The court recognized that, if assumption of risk by the plaintiff was made out, it would bar recovery under the act. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492, 58 L. ed. 1062, L.R.A.1915C, 1, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 635, 8 N. C. C. A. 834, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 475. The court charged the jury accordingly, and there was no exception by the...