Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 01 January 1890
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. WILSON.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

12 S.W. 720

88 Tenn. 316

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. WILSON.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 1, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Maury county; E. D. PATTERSON, Judge.

Hughes & Hatcher, for appellant.

Taylor & Fowler and Figures & Padgett, for appellee.

TURNEY C.J.

M. W Wilson, baggageman on the Louisville & Nashville Railroad was killed in a collision of an accommodation train, going south, with a single engine, going north. The accident resulted from the negligence of the engineer on the single engine, in failing to take the side track at God-win and await the coming of the accommodation. His orders were that he should so run as to keep out of the way of all regular trains, clearing all trains at least 10 minutes. Wilson had been in the service of the company for about three years part of the time as special conductor. At the time of the accident, he and another, besides the engineer and fireman were riding on the engine, and just before the accident was seen sitting on the fireman's seat.

As baggage-master, the deceased was a trainman. It is a rule of the company "that the duties of the conductor or trainmen do not require them to ride or remain on the engine and they are prohibited from doing so." "When on duty, the baggage-master must not leave his car, unless it be securely locked, and then only for as short a time as possible." The deceased had a book of rules. The proof is, and the fact is necessarily that way, that the engine is the most dangerous part of a train, in case of collision. Trainmen, including the baggage-master, are employed for certain defined duties; and it is, whether expressed or not, a part of their undertaking that they will attend to those duties, and observe the rules of the company made for their execution. It is the duty of the company to make the best and safest regulations for the protection of the employes. The purpose and good sense of the rules cited are apparent on a bare statement. The obligation of the employe to obey reasonable rules, intended for his safety, may not be disregarded with impunity. It is reasonably certain that if the deceased had been in the duty assigned him on the train, and in the position required by the rules, he would have escaped, as it appears that one in his seat in the baggage-car escaped, unhurt. There is no pretense of a call by duty to the engine, nor is the presence of Wilson there attempted to be explained. We must,...