Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Hooker

• Decision Date: 24 May 1909
• Docket Number: 2,799.
• Citation: 170 F. 154
• Parties: GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. v. HOOKER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

170 F. 154

GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. v. HOOKER.

No. 2,799.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 24, 1909

C. J Murphy (Fred S. Duggan, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

George A. Bangs (C. C. McElwee, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN and VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judges.

VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judge.

This was an action to recover for personal injuries sustained in a collision on the railroad of the Great Northern Railway Company, and one of the questions to be considered is whether or not the evidence was such as reasonably to admit of no other conclusion than that the plaintiff disregarded the rules prescribing his duties in the premises, and thereby was guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to his injuries. In that view of the evidence which is most favorable to him, and yet is reasonably permissible, these are the facts: The collision occurred within the station or yard limits at Lakota, N.D., in the early evening, while it was dark. Forty-seven cars of an east-bound freight train extra 1200, were, and for three hours had been, standing upon the main track between the outside switches, and the engine and other cars were in another part of the yard, where one of the cars was being repaired. In that situation, the rules of the company required that certain signal lights be displayed upon and about the cars upon the main track to give warning of their presence at that place; but compliance with that requirement was neglected by those in charge of the train and their negligence was attributable to the railway company under the state statute.

The plaintiff was the engineer on a west-bound freight train extra 1124, and knew that his train would meet extra 1200 at Lakota. As he approached that station, and when he was about a mile and a half away, he observed the headlight of an engine upon a side track within the station or yard limits, and after a brief time the headlight ceased to be observable. Thereupon he assumed that it was the headlight of extra 1200, that that train had been turned out from the main track to permit his train to pass thereon, and that thereupon the headlight had been hooded and thereby concealed, both of which acts should, and probably would, have been performed, if it had not been necessary, in the circumstances, to leave a part of extra 1200 upon the main track while one of the cars was being repaired upon another track. But, in truth, that train had not turned out from the main track, only the engine and a few of the cars being on a side track, and the headlight had not been hooded, but had ceased to be observable because the plaintiff's view of it was cut off by some cars standing on an intermediate track. In approaching the station or yard limits he slackened the speed of his train somewhat, but not enough, or approximately enough, to enable him to bring it to a stop within such distance as he could look ahead and see that the track was clear. On the contrary, he proceeded within the station or yard limits at such a speed that, although he was looking ahead carefully, although the appliances for stopping his train were in good working order, and although, when the cars standing upon the main track came within the range of his vision, he did all that could be done to stop his train, a severe and destructive collision ensued. Shortly thereafter he sent in a written report wherein he estimated that his train was moving '15 to 18 miles per hour,' and the immediate results of the collision confirm that estimate. Both trains were regular ones, which were more than 12 hours behind their schedule time, and were proceeding under train orders, as provided in rule 44, which was as follows:

'Regular trains twelve hours behind their schedule time lose both right and class, and can thereafter proceed only by train order.'

The order under which the plaintiff's train was proceeding, of which he had a copy, read as follows:

'Eng. 1124 will run extra Michigan to Devil's Lake ahead of No. 403 and meet extra 1200 east at Lakota.'

On a time-table carried by the plaintiff was this special rule, with which he was familiar:

'At the following named stations, engines, freight trains, and work trains may occupy main track, and block signals will be operated as per block signal rule No. 16: Lakota.'

The plaintiff was an experienced engineer upon that part of the defendant's road, knew the location and extent of the station or yard limits at Lakota, knew his relative position to them as he was approaching, and was familiar with the rules prescribing his duties in the premises. Those rules were as follows:

'Rule 53. All trains must approach all stations, and water tanks between stations, under control, and so proceed until the track is plainly seen to be clear.

The responsibility for a collision at a station, or at a water tank between stations, will rest with the following or incoming train. This will not relieve train and enginemen from the responsibility of protecting trains at stations and water tanks as provided by rules 49 and 57.'

The two rules so designated and block signal rule 14 required that certain signals be displayed upon and about trains and cars situated as was that part of extra 1200 which was upon the main track.

'Rule 69. When within the limits of the various yards all trains must be run with great care, and under control of the engineman.

'Switching engines will have the right to work upon the main track without special orders, within yard limits, upon the time of all except first-class (passenger) trains, but must clear the track immediately upon their arrival.'

'Rule 81. In all cases of doubt or uncertainty, take the safe course and run no risks.'

'Rule 223. The engineman is jointly and equally responsible with the conductor for the safety of his train and the movement of the same in strict compliance with the rules, and he must decline to obey any orders which involve peril to his train or violation of the rules.'

'Block Signal Rule 16. Each division will specify important stations * * * under 'special rules' on time-table, where engines, freight trains, and work trains may occupy the main track between the outside switches, except upon the time of regular passenger trains. The engines, freight trains or work trains may be reported as having arrived at such stations when they are between the outer switches, providing block signalman has been notified by the conductor; and block signalman at adjoining stations may then give clear signal to any approaching train, except passenger train. The responsibility for an accident between outside switches of stations so specified will rest entirely with the train approaching said limits.'

At the adjoining station a clear block signal was given to the plaintiff, which he rightly understood as meaning that the track was clear to Lakota, subject to the qualification in block signal rule 16 relating to the occupancy of the main track between the outside switches. As his train was approaching Lakota, the light at the east switch was green and he rightly understood therefrom that the switch was lined up for the main track, and not the side track. The switching and yard work at that station was done by train engines and crews, no switch engine or crew being maintained there; and when a train engine was so engaged it usually was separated from the major part of the train. The plaintiff knew that that was so,...