Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Farris

• Decision Date: 19 March 1907
• Citation: 100 S.W. 870
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. FARRIS.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

100 S.W. 870

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. FARRIS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 19, 1907

Appeal from Circuit Court, Garrard County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by William Farris against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

John T Shelby, Lewis L. Walker, and Benjamin D. Warfield, for appellant.

James I. Hamilton and W. I. Williams, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

The National Bank of Lancaster had a safe in one of the cars of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company at its station at Lancaster. The car had been placed upon the side track that the safe might be unloaded. The bank hired some men for the purpose of taking the safe out of the car, and among them William Farris. After they had gotten the safe from the end of the car to the door, the wagon was sent away for some heavier timbers, and, while it was gone, Farris and some of the other men waited in the car for the return of the wagon and, according to his testimony, were directed to wait there and get some timbers to chock the safe. While they were waiting, the local freight train pulled in, and it was necessary to move the car in order to do some switching it had to do. The men in charge of the freight backed in on the side track, coupled onto the car, and backed it back to some other cars on the side track and coupled onto them. They then pulled out; but, as they were going along, in some way the rear cars of the train pulled loose from those in front. The conductor, not perceiving this, gave the engineer a stop signal. The engine stopped, and the rear cars that were loose ran down upon the cars that were attached to the engine before the engine could be started again so as to pull the train out of their way. In the collision, the safe was knocked over and fell upon Farris' leg, inflicting a painful flesh wound, from which he was laid up some weeks and was not able to work something longer. There was a sharp conflict in the testimony. The evidence for the defendant was to the effect that the conductor of the train went to the car to shut the door, and told the men to get out before he coupled onto it; that they all got out, and it tended to show that Farris afterwards got back into the car. The evidence for the plaintiff was to the effect that they helped the conductor close the door of the car, and that he said nothing to them about getting out. The court instructed the jury as follows: "(1) If you believe, from the evidence in the case, that the defendant, by its employés, set the car containing the safe for the purpose of the removal of the safe, or permitted it to be set, and that thereafter the plaintiff, under his employment to help move the safe from the car, was engaged in his duties of preparing said safe to be moved out, and that, while so engaged, the defendant, by its employés negligently ran one or more cars against, or negligently permitted them to run onto or against, the car in which plaintiff was so engaged, and thereby inflicted personal injury upon the plaintiff, then you will find for the plaintiff such an amount in damages against the defendant as will reasonably...