Jones v. Louisville & N.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1894
• Citation: Jones v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 26 S.W. 590, 95 Ky. 576 (Ky. Ct. App. 1894)
• Parties: JONES v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

26 S.W. 590

95 Ky. 576

JONES v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 17, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Hardin county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by T. J. Jones against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for personal injuries.Defendant obtained judgment.Plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

J. P Hobson, for appellant.

W. H Marriott, for appellee.

LEWIS J.

Appellant having, while engaged as an employe of appellee in operating a hand car, been knocked from and run over by it, brought this action to recover for personal injury then received which he states resulted from gross negligence of the section boss, to whose orders he was at the time subject.The alleged negligence consisted in the section boss' placing appellant at front end of the hand car-the most dangerous position-for the purpose of working one of the levers, without informing him of the peculiar danger to which he was thereby exposed, or instructing him how to avoid it, although he had been employed only a few days as a section hand, and was unacquainted with the business of running hand cars; and in the section boss' placing, or permitting to be placed, loose upon floor of the car, working tools, in the effort to avoid contact with which, while working the lever, appellant was struck by the lever and knocked from the hand car, and received the injury referred to.As the lower court, at conclusion of the evidence in behalf of plaintiff, instructed the jury to find for defendant, which was done, the only question for us to consider is whether that action of the court was proper.

It appears that appellant was employed as a section hand by the section boss in behalf of appellee, and commenced work on Monday, and received the injury complained of the following Saturday; that each day during that period he, with his colaborers, under control of the section boss, was engaged in the work he was employed to do, which required the hand car to be moved from place to place, and in moving which appellant, like other hands, took part; but he had never been before so employed, and of course was inexperienced and unskillful, being by occupation a day laborer of ordinary intelligence and capacity.On the day he was injured, the hands, accompanied by the section boss, had gone some distance from the station house for the purpose of repairing the railroad, taking the hand car with them, and the manner in which a...