Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Bryant

• Decision Date: 25 May 1893
• Citation: 22 S.W. 606
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. BRYANT.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

22 S.W. 606

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. BRYANT.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 25, 1893

Appeal from court of common pleas, Whitley county.

Action by Mart Bryant, by his next friend, against the Louisville &amp Nashville Railroad Company for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Hill &amp Denham, for appellant.

C. W Lester, for appellee.

PRYOR J.

The plaintiff, an inexperienced railroad man, applied to one in charge of the freight trains of the appellant for the place of brakeman, and was assigned to duty. He represented himself as being of full age, and had that appearance, but was in fact not 21 years of age, and now sues by his next friend. He alleges that he was put to work without instruction or warning as to his danger in discharging the duties connected with his employment, and that proper appliances were not furnished him to enable him to discharge those duties. What was not furnished him is known with brakemen as a "coupling stick," and the superintendent or conductor is required by the rules of the company to furnish each brakeman with this stick, and take their receipts for the same. The appellee did in fact give a receipt, but no stick was furnished the appellee. He was in the employ of the company about one month, when in coupling the cars under the order of the conductor, his hand was mashed, and his arm had to be amputated. It seems to us that a service of one month with the company ought to have furnished the plaintiff with the experience he now says should have been taught him with reference to coupling cars. The facts show that none of the brakemen use this coupling stick, and regard it as a useless appliance in the coupling of cars. It is true that the conductor says, if the appellant had used the stick, it would have prevented the injury; and it might also be said, if the appellee had used proper precaution in coupling the cars, the injury would not have happened. This rule is adopted by the company for the safety of the employes, and they may use it or not, as they think best; and because a stick is not handed to them, and they happen to receive an injury in the discharge of their duties, affords no reason for imposing a penalty on the company in the way of damages. The question, it seems to us, is, what was the ordinary mode of coupling cars as practiced by brakemen in the employ of the company? If this mode was followed by the...