Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Miller

• Citation: 175 S.W. 1164,117 Ark. 396
• Decision Date: 22 March 1915
• Docket Number: 267
• Parties: KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. MILLER
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

175 S.W. 1164

117 Ark. 396

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. MILLER

No. 267

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 22, 1915

Appeal from Little River Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This is a suit for damages for personal injury to plaintiff's eyes, alleged to have been caused by steam escaping through the negligence of the railway company in permitting the steam line of the train to be charged at the time his duties required him to disconnect the train from the engine and when a defective test valve, or one not in working order, failed to disclose that the pipe was charged.

The answer denied any negligence as charged; all the material allegations in the complaint relative thereto; alleged that it was the inspector's duty to discover the condition of the valve and of the steam line before breaking or disconnecting it, and that if he was injured, it was because of his own carelessness or negligence or on account of the risk assumed in his employment.

It appears from the testimony that C. H. Miller was a car inspector for the railway company located at De Queen, Ark whose duty required him to cut off the passenger train from the engine and connect it up with another engine for the continuation of the journey on to Texas and Louisiana; that about ten or fifteen minutes was allowed for the inspection of the train coming from the north out of Oklahoma and disconnecting the engine and coupling it to another engine when it was due for departure south. It was the custom for the engineer to cut off the steam from the steam line three or four miles before coming into the station where the engines were changed and the inspection made and the brakeman to open the rear valve that the steam might escape therefrom. The steam line is the pipe or hose running from the engine through the coaches for the purpose of heating them. There is a valve at each end of each coach along this steam line and one at the end thereof on the rear coach. The steam line is disconnected or broken by the inspector at the joint between the engine and the car by raising and pushing it up. At this joint there is a small valve called a test or tell-tale valve, which upon being pushed in or pushed down should disclose whether there is pressure or steam in the line or pipe.

Appellee was injured upon the breaking or disconnecting of the steam line from the engine by the steam and hot water blowing out and burning and scalding his face, forehead and eyes. He stated that he pressed down or tapped the tell-tale valve and it did not show any steam or pressure, and that he then with the help of the other inspector raised the joint or connection and broke it in the usual way and that the steam escaped and injured him.

He also said that he went to the rear of the train after he was injured and discovered that the rear valve on the steam line was closed, and that no steam would have been in the pipe that could have injured him if it had been turned off and the rear valve opened before coming into the station as it was the duty and custom of the other employees to do.

The conductor testified that at the station above De Queen, five or six miles, he directed the brakeman to signal the engineer to cut the steam off from the valve and to open the rear valve of the line and allow it to escape.

The engineer testified that he did cut the steam off from the line, upon the signal at the station above De Queen as was the custom, and the brakeman said that under the instructions of the conductor he went to the rear end of the train and opened the rear valve on the steam line for the steam to escape.

J. R Sanders testified that he was a car inspector and his duties were "to cut the engine off, look the train over, put the other train on as quick as possible and they had ten minutes to get the train in and out--all the coaches, to see if it was safe to go out to make the trip." He said further that sometimes the steam line was charged with steam and sometimes blown out; that they were emptied from the rear end and he had found the steam line charged

The master mechanic testified that the hose connection was the standard in use on the line of railroad, and there was a valve on the lower end of it for the purpose of allowing condensed steam to escape. It is called also a tell-tale valve. "If it is pushed in, it will disclose whether the steam line is charged by the steam escaping through the opening if there is any steam in it. That rule 162, requires "steam hose must not be uncoupled until the steam has been shut off." It was the inspector's duty to see that the steam was shut off and all instructions to all employees having any duty to perform in uncoupling the steam hose is to see that the steam is shut off before the hose is uncoupled. The only test of that is through that valve. It was the duty of the inspector to look for defects and discover if any are in the valve and if the hose are found defective it is his duty to change it or put another on, that is what they are hired for."

The district foreman stated it was the duty of Miller to uncouple the air hose and steam heat or line hose and to satisfy himself of their condition before uncoupling them and that he was an experienced man.

The other inspector, Becker, who was assisting in uncoupling the hose, stated there was a good deal of steam, that he could not tell which way the pressure of the steam came from, he was holding the same piece of hose that Miller was, did not get burned in any way and "I think Miller said shut off the steam. I did not know Miller was hurt until I went around the train. I suppose he stayed there to couple on the other engine. We just raised up the hose and broke it and I was not burned in any way."

Nolen Wells testified he was present when the injury occurred; that appellee was on the east side with another man on the opposite side; that he was on the west side. Miller broke the steam hose and a little bit of steam came out from the engine and very little from the line of the train. "When that steam came out he did not make any statement or claim that it burned him, he just said it looked like the steam had not been cut off. I saw the steam that came from the engine end of the pipe. If the steam had not been cut off, it would have come out with greater force."

Miller's statement reporting the occurrence showed that he was disconnecting the steam line between the baggage car and engine to cut the engine off; "the steam line was full of steam and when I disconnected the hose the steam burned my face and forehead." In giving the nature and extent of the injury "burned face and forehead."

Doctor Lanier stated that appellee came to his hospital about April 13, 1914, for treatment, that his eyes were inflamed, he had conjunctivitis. The cornea of the eye had lost its brightness and luster, was dull looking and was inflamed. The iris and ciliary muscles of the left eye were also inflamed. He said that the eye was so injured that it would get worse; that it also impaired the vision of the other eye and it was possible that the left eye would have to be removed.

Doctor Archer, the railroad surgeon, was not permitted to testify about the condition of plaintiff's eyes when he treated him for the injury immediately after the occurrence, nor to state that he did not claim at that time his eyes were injured.

Doctor Mann, a specialist from Texarkana, was not permitted to testify about the condition of appellee's eyes in April 1914, ascertained from an examination of his eyes at that time with a view to treating him as a physician, the information being obtained in the course of the consultation with him. He would have stated that the examination disclosed no condition that could have resulted from a scald or burn by steam at the time it was claimed the injury occurred and that appellee's eyes were not injured materially nor permanently at all at the time of his examination. After the examination was made with a view to treatment, appellee asked this physician or was told by him that he was the physician of the railroad company to treat the injured employees and appellee went away and did not return for treatment. He told the physician at the time that he was a hunter and trapper. This physician testified from an examination made on the day of the trial that the left eye was very much inflamed; that the right eye was in a normal condition except some medicine had been used in it that as soon as its effect had disappeared, it would be as good as ever, and under proper treatment the left eye would be a very good one. In his opinion if the left eye had been burned with hot steam on the 22d day of last December, it would not have caused the present condition of the eye.

Doctor Moulton of Fort Smith also examined him and stated there were scars on the skin surface of the upper and lower lids of the left eye as though it had been recently blistered, that the white part of the eye ball was quite red. The cornea was cloudy and "there is quite an area in the center of this cornea from which the outer covering or outer layers had been recently removed." There is a denudation of the surface. The outside layers of this membrane were wanting as though they had been recently destroyed, so recently that there had not been time for these layers to have been replaced with scar tissue. If that injury had been caused on December 22 it would not have been in that condition now." There was no indication of any permanent injury to his right eye.

The train upon which the steam line was being disconnected was an interstate one, having come out of Oklahoma, and was proceeding on clown through Arkansas into Texas and Louisiana upon being coupled to another engine. Appellee...