Great Northern Railway Company v. Wiles

Decision Date20 March 1916
Docket NumberNo. 196,196
Citation36 S.Ct. 406,240 U.S. 444,60 L.Ed. 732
PartiesGREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. J. H. WILES, as Administrator of the Estate of Dennis E. Wiles, Deceased
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

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

Messrs. W. R. Duxbury and Lyle Pettijohn for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

Action for damages for the killing of one Dennis E. Wiles, brought by the administrator of his estate, who is also his father and next of kin. It was brought under the employers' liability act of April 22, 1908 (35 Stat. at L. 65, chap. 149), as amended April 5, 1910 (36 Stat. at L. 291, chap. 143, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8662).

Wiles was a freight brakeman in the employ of the railway company in interstate commerce, the company being an interstate common carrier.

There was a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $650. Upon motion of defendant the court, expressing the view that Wiles's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident which resulted in his death, rendered judgment that, notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiff take nothing by his action, that the same be dismissed, and that the railway company recover of plaintiff $36.52 costs.

The judgment was reversed by the supreme court of the state and judgment ordered to be entered on the verdict.

The only issue is as to the negligence of the railway company and the contributory negligence of the deceased, and the causal relation, if either existed, to the death of the deceased.

The determining facts of the case are as follows:

Deceased was a rear brakeman on a freight train of the railway company proceeding easterly between Grotto and Skykomish, Washington. After having passed a curve in the road the train broke in two by the drawbar pulling out of the sixth car from the engine, which caused the train to stop instantly. It was run into shortly after (from 3 to 5 minutes, it was testified) by a passenger train drawn by two engines. The night was pretty dark and the weather a little misty. At the place of collision the track was obstructed by a very sharp curve and a bluff on the right-hand side for about five box-car lengths, and the rear end of the freight train at that place could not be seen more than five box-car lengths away. On the left-hand side of the engine, which is the fireman's side, the track could not be seen more than a car length ahead because that would be on the outside of the curve. The engineer of the passenger train did not know of the existence of the freight train ahead and no negligence is attributed to him. The deceased and the conductor of the freight train were in the caboose and both were killed. What caused the pulling out of the drawbar was not shown, nor was there proof that it was defective, or that the company was negligent in the care or use of it.

The head brakeman of the freight train testified that the train stopped immediately upon the pulling out of the drawbar, that he descended from the train and hastened back to the caboose for a chain, and that he saw the headlight of the passenger train as it came around the curve. He further testified that it was Wiles's duty to have gone back to protect the rear end of his train at the time the passenger train was due out of the station in the rear, and that this applied whether the delayed inferior train which was ahead was running or standing still; that it was the duty of Wiles to have gone back a sufficient distance to guarantee full protection to the rear of his train, and that the engineer of the freight train, at the time the train broke in two, signaled the rear brakeman to go back and protect the rear end of his train. The same...

To continue reading

Request your trial
227 cases
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Jolly's Adm'x
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 1930
    ... ... the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment adverse ... to defendant, and it appeals ... v ... Glinn (C.C.A.) 219 F. 148; Slatinka v. Railway ... Administration, 194 Iowa 159, 188 N.W. 20, 24 A.L.R ... 34, 49 ... S.Ct. 210, 73 L.Ed. 601; Great Northern R. Co. v ... Wiles, 240 U.S. 444, 36 S.Ct. 406, ... ...
  • Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1957
    ...R. Co. v. Skaggs, 240 U.S. 66, 36 S.Ct. 249, 60 L.Ed. 528; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Great Northern R. Co. v. Wiles, 240 U.S. 444, 36 S.Ct. 406, 60 L.Ed. 732; reversal of judgment n.o.v. for defendant Great Northern R. Co. v. Knapp, 240 U.S. 464, 36 S.Ct. 399, 60 L.Ed. ......
  • 42 498 Kelley v. Southern Pacific Company 8212 1270
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1974
    ...assumed by the decedent under his contract, not 'a detailed control of the actions of (decedent) or those of his employees.' Id., at 455—456, 36 S.Ct., at 406. The arrangement by which decedent had been engaged to provide services for the railroad, the Court concluded, was 'not the engageme......
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1929
    ...injuries and death were caused solely by his own carelessness, unaffected by and independent of any negligence of appellant. Ry. Co. v. Wiles, 240 U.S. 444; Frese v. Railroad Co., 263 U.S. 1; Davis v. Kennedy, 266 U.S. 147. (4) The purpose for which deceased alighted from the train, if he d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • ALL OVER THE MAP: THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PRIMARY DUTY RULE IN MARITIME LITIGATION.
    • United States
    • Loyola Maritime Law Journal Vol. 20 No. 1, December 2020
    • December 22, 2020
    ...due to negligence for which the respondent would be liable). (65) Id. at 16-17 (citing Walker, 193 F.2d 772 and Great N. R. Co. v. Wiles, 240 U.S. 444 (1916), as examples of cases using the (66) Id. at 17. (67) Id. (68) See Juliussen v. Buchanan Marine, L.P., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1406. *44......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT