Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Coughlin

• Decision Date: 21 October 1904
• Docket Number: 1,305.
• Citation: 132 F. 801
• Parties: ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. COUGHLIN.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

132 F. 801

ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. COUGHLIN.

No. 1,305.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

October 21, 1904

Francis Fentress, Dist. Atty., and C. G. Bond, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas McCorry and James E. Pope, for defendant in error.

Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.

LURTON Circuit Judge.

This is an action for personal injury sustained by the defendant in error while in the service of the plaintiff in error as a switchman. There was a jury, and verdict and judgment for the plaintiff below. The plaintiff, while assisting in switching operations in the yard of the company at McComb City, Miss attempted to climb upon a passing freight car by grasping the iron handhold on the side. One end of this pulled of the bolt which attached it to the car, and the plaintiff was thrown under a wheel. The question upon which the case turned was whether this handhold had been originally properly secured and, if so, whether in such case the company had exercised due care in keeping same in safe condition for use.

There was evidence tending to show that the safe and usual way of fastening such a handhold was by bolts running through the wood, with a head on one end and a nut on the other, and that it was not safe to attach such a handhold with a lag screw, a screw with a sharp point on one end and a head at the other. There was some conflict in the evidence as to whether this handhold was attached by a bolt or a lag screw, though the great weight of evidence was that it was attached by a bolt. There was evidence that this car had been overhauled and put in complete order about one month before this accident, and that this handhold was then properly and safely attached and in good order. There was also evidence that the car had been inspected the night before, and the handhold found in good condition; the inspector testifying that there was nothing to indicate any defect in the handholds and that he found this handhold fastened at both ends by bolts and nuts screwed on the ends, and that the taps and nuts were on the ends of the bolts and screwed down solid to the handhold. Within about eight hours thereafter, and before the car had been moved out of the yard where the inspection had been made, this handhold became detached at one end; the nut having been either taken off or having worked off of the head of the bolt.

The uncontradicted evidence is that, within a few minutes after the injury to Coughlin, a careful examination was made, and the nut found to be off. The thread on the bolt did not show wear, and was yet bright. If the nut was in fact on and screwed down solid to the handhold when examined by the company's inspector a few hours before, there is no fact in evidence which tends to explain the accident. Counsel have conjectured that it may have jostled off from the movement of the car around the yard during switching operations, and that there may have been some hidden defect in the threads of the bolt or the nut. In confirmation of this theory there was evidence that a new nut put on at once was found off of this bolt a few hours later, and after the car had traveled but a little more than 50 miles. It has also been conjectured that the nut may have been taken off for some evil purpose, but there is no fact in the record which supports this, other than the difficulty of reconciling the uncontradicted evidence of the inspector with the fact of the coming off of this handhold. It is again conjectured that the inspection was not carefully made, and that the nut must have been off or in a condition to easily work off, which condition should have been discovered by a proper inspection.

A railroad company is under obligation to use ordinary care in providing its employes with reasonably safe tools and appliances with which to do their work, and under like obligation to keep same in reasonably safe repair, and neither duty can be avoided by imposing it upon some one of its servants. Felton v. Bullard, 94 F. 781, 37 C.C.A. 1. But this obligation falls far short of a guaranty that such tools, machinery, or appliances are absolutely safe. Washington & G. R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U.S 554, 570, 10 Sup.Ct. 1044, 34 L.Ed. 235; Patton v. T. & P. Ry. Co., 179 U.S. 658, 21 Sup.Ct. 275, 45 L.Ed. 361. Nor is a railroad company under the duty of using unusual or extraordinary care in keeping its equipment or tools in repair. The measure of its duty to an employe is that of ordinary care. If it adopts the ordinary, customary, and approved means or tests for the discovery of defects in its appliances, such as are customarily used by prudently conducted companies, it will discharge its duty, and the employe who sustains an injury notwithstanding must bear the loss as one of the risks of the occupation. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Barrett, 166 U.S. 617, 17 Sup.Ct....