Haring v. Great N. Ry. Co.
| Citation | 137 Wis. 367,119 N.W. 325 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 05 January 1909 |
| Parties | HARING v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas County; A. J. Vinge, Judge.
Action by Gustave Haring, administrator of J. M. Haring, deceased, against the Great Northern Railway Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action for damages arising out of the death of plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have been due to the negligence of the defendant. The complaint alleges: “That on the 2d day of July, 1907, the plaintiff's intestate, J. M. Haring, was engaged in the performance of his duties as a switchman for the defendant in its said yards at Superior, Wis.; that at said time and place one of the defendant's large freight cars was being moved and pushed upon said switch track, by the side of said platform, by the defendant's engineer in charge of one of its locomotive engines, under the direction of its switching foreman, and that as said car had moved a short distance upon said track by the side of said platform, and was about to be brought to a standstill so as to be stopped, set, and blocked there, and the engine detached, the plaintiff's intestate, J. M. Haring, in the performance of his duties as such switchman, passed from the side of said switch track opposite to said platform, by the end of said car, across said track, and between said car and said platform for the purpose of placing a block under the wheel of said car, so that it would not run out of said switch track when detached from said engine, and that when he got between said car and said platform, he was caught between the side of said car and said platform, and then and there crushed and mortally injured to such an extent that he died as the result of such injuries on said July 2, 1907.” The accident occurred at a point where the track curved, and where the platform was constructed on a curve corresponding to the curve of the track. As the car passed around the curve the ends of the car were about 20 inches from the edge of the platform; the center of the car 5 1/2 inches. Plaintiff's intestate stepped from in front of the approaching car into the open space between the end of the car and the platform, and as the center of the car reached him, he was so crushed and injured that death resulted. The car was about to stop, and the deceased was ready to block the car and prevent its moving on the switch track beside the platform. The deceased was working as a member of a switching crew, consisting of an engineer, a fireman, a switch foreman, who had charge of and directed the work, the switchman and the deceased. At the time of the accident deceased was on the ground opposite the platform, while the other members of the crew were backing a car in with an engine. The other switchman was on the engine to give the signal for the stopping of the car. This could be given from either side of the engine, to the engineer or the fireman. The platform near the track was used for loading, unloading, and holding freight, and was built practically on a level with the floor of the freight cars, and in such close proximity as to permit moving light freight into and out of the cars. It was not designed to leave working space between the platform and the car, and it was not necessary for the deceased in the performance of his duties to step into this space. When it was free from obstruction, it was customary to work on the engineer's side of the switch train, but the other, or fireman's side, was used when appropriate. Deceased's duty could properly be performed on the fireman's side of the car, which was open and free from structures and well adapted for blocking the car. It appears that the platform is built as freight platforms are commonly built, as to its proximity to the track and its height, and that the deceased, by stepping into a position between the car and the platform, voluntarily chose his place of work. Decedent had been in the employ of the defendant company for some years, performing various services which brought him into the freight yard upon and near the platform. During the month preceding the accident he had served most of the time with the switching crew, switching freight cars in the yard about this platform and on the switch tracks adjacent thereto. The defense alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, and also introduced a release containing the following, signed by the father of the deceased: “That, in consideration of said employment and the wages to be paid, the said party of the second part does hereby release said company from all claims, damages or loss which may accrue to him, the said party of the second part, growing out of injuries which he the said minor, may receive while in the service of said company, and that the said minor is subject to the employment by the said first party, at its pleasure, and that the said minor may execute a full release and satisfaction therefor without the consent of said parent or guardian.” At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kiley v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
-
Luebben v. Wis. Traction, Light, Heat & Power Co.
...court held that the questions of assumption of risk and contributory negligence were for the jury”--citing cases. In Haring v. Railway Co., 137 Wis. 371, 119 N. W. 325, the Dorsey Case is again mentioned with approval, and the case under consideration distinguished upon the ground that in t......
-
Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis v. Fitzjohn
...Coast Line R. Co. v. Davis, 279 U.S. 34, 49 S.Ct. 210, 73 L.Ed. 601; Ford v. Dickinson, 280 Mo. 206, 217 S.W. 294; Haring v. Great Northern R. Co., 137 Wis. 367, 119 N.W. 325; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Swearingen, 196 U.S. 51, 61, 62, 25 S.Ct. 164, 49 L.Ed. 382; Washington R. & Elec. Co. v. Scal......
-
Pankey v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
... ... facts do not distinguish it from other cases, it is, in ... effect, overruled by the later case of Haring v ... Railroad, 119 N.W. 325. In that case the Supreme Court ... of Wisconsin held, as a matter of law, that the railroad was ... not negligent ... both from his own knowledge as to where the cars to be ... coupled were and from the "easy" signal given by ... Pankey, that he was no great distance from them. And this ... easy signal meant to go on but at a still slower pace. Pankey ... gave this order and then passed out of view. He ... ...