Lyle v. Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 May 1906
• Docket Number: 1,480.
• Citation: 145 F. 611
• Parties: LYLE v. ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

145 F. 611

LYLE v. ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RY. CO.

No. 1,480.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 5, 1906

Samuel Bosworth Smith, for plaintiff in error.

Lewis Shepherd, for defendant in error.

Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.

RICHARDS Circuit Judge.

This was a suit to recover damages for the wrongful death of the plaintiff's intestate, one Milton Lyle, a brakeman killed while in the employ of the defendant company. The court directed a verdict for the defendant. The question is whether the case should have gone to the jury. The defendant was charged with negligence in permitting a bumper on a gondola car to become loose and out of repair, so that when Lyle stepped upon it, it turned and he was thrown to the ground and run over; also in not making a proper inspection which would have disclosed the defect. In giving the peremptory instruction, the court sustained the position of the defense, that the bumper was intended solely to receive and lessen the shock of meeting cars, and not, under any circumstances, as a foothold or part of the platform; therefore, the company was not obliged to inspect the bumper with a view of ascertaining whether it was firm, and Lyle, in stepping upon it as he did, was attempting to put it to an illegitimate use, for the result of which the company could not be held responsible. In other words, it was the negligence of Lyle, and not that of the company, which caused the accident.

The accident occurred while a number of freight cars were being made up for delivery on the belt line at Chattanooga. A switch engine had thrown one car on the track and then 'kicked' another car, gondola No. 4,515, down the track toward the standing car, for the purpose of coupling the two together. Lyle was standing on the forward end of the moving car for the purpose of controlling its approach and attending to the coupling. The car was equipped with an automatic drawhead or coupler. On each side of the drawhead was a bumper (or buffer or deadwood), placed there to receive the shock of the meeting cars and protect the drawhead. Each bumper was made of cast iron and was fastened to the car by a rod which passed through its center, and was held in place by a nut underneath the car. With the nut tight, the buffer was stationary and firm, being held in place by lugs which were set into the sill, but if the nut became loose, the lugs would cease to hold and the buffer turn on the rod. The sill or platform of the car was about 12 inches deep, and at the right of the bumper, attached to the outside of the sill, was a brake, the staff of which originally stood up straight with a brake wheel at the upper end, 15 inches in diameter. A rod from the automatic coupler ran past the brake to the corner of the car. This rod, which acted as a lever, could be manipulated by a brakeman standing on the ground, for the purpose of putting the drawhead in position to couple. On that side of the car near the corner was a stirrup or step used to get on and off the car. As we have stated, Lyle rode down on the forward end of this gondola. While it was still moving slowly, he stepped on the loose bumper, which turned with him, and he was thrown on the track and run over receiving fatal injuries.

The question is whether he had a right, under the circumstances to use this bumper as a foothold, relying upon its being in repair and firm and stationary. If he did, the company should have inspected it and kept it firm and stationary, or so marked it as to indicate that it was not firm and stationary. If he did not, there was no duty of inspection for the purpose indicated, and Lyle was guilty of contributory negligence in using the bumper for an illegitimate purpose. In determining this question, or rather in determining whether the court below was correct in deciding it in favor of the company, it has been necessary to examine carefully the testimony in the case. Upon three material...