Lyle v. Atchison, T. & SF Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 9801.,9801. |
| Citation | 177 F.2d 221 |
| Parties | LYLE v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Thomas J. Barnett, Philip E. Von Ammon, Floyd J. Stuppi, Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Julius S. Neale, Marion J. Hannigan, Walter E. Moss, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before KERNER and FINNEGAN, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
Defendants appeal from a judgment rendered upon the verdict of a jury awarding plaintiff damages for personal injuries incurred while servicing a railroad locomotive. The complaint averred that defendants had violated the Boiler Inspection Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 23, in that they had permitted oil, grease and foreign substances to remain on the steps of a ladder on the tender of the locomotive in violation of the statute. At the trial plaintiff relied and sought recovery only upon the basis of defendants' violation of this Act.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railroad Company as a "hostler's helper," whose duty it was to service locomotives with sand, water, fuel oil, lubricating oil and waste for the journals and to clean the locomotives of any foreign substance such as oil and grease on the tender or elsewhere, in short, to service locomotives and put them in readiness for use on the railroad.
On January 10, 1946, the engine, owned by defendant Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe but being used on the line of defendant Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe, was brought into Gainesville, Texas, about eight o'clock in the evening. The night was misty, the ground damp and the surface of the locomotive and tender wet. The engineer and fireman left the locomotive and a hostler then took charge and drove the locomotive first to the sand chute, where plaintiff filled the sand dome, then to a spot near the water spout, where plaintiff filled the tank with water and then to another place where plaintiff filled the fuel tank. From the latter point the hostler moved the engine to the inspection pit near the round-house where it came to rest, the hostler then leaving the locomotive to plaintiff for further service, plaintiff being the only person thereafter on it.
Plaintiff proceeded with his duties, procured lubricating oil from a supply house for the lubricators and waste for the journals and finished his work. He testified that after he had completed his task, he remembered a pail on top of the tender which should have been stored away; that he then climbed upon top of the tender, got the bucket and a lid-hook, put them in their proper places and started down the steps running from the top of the tender to the deck of the locomotive cab, a distance of some four or five feet. This so-called ladder consisted of two fan-shaped iron steps and, on either side, a hand rail to use in climbing up or down the steps. While descending plaintiff either missed his footing or slipped on the top step and fell to the deck of the locomotive cab some four or five feet, receiving the injuries complained of.
Defendants contend that the judgment should be reversed for several reasons but, in view of our conclusion, we have found it necessary to consider only the contention that the locomotive was not in use at the time of the accident so as to bring it within the purview of the Boiler Inspection Act.
Plaintiff's cause of action depends entirely upon the liability asserted under the Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 23, the pertinent part of which is: "It shall be unlawful for any carrier to use or permit to be used on its line any locomotive unless said locomotive, its boiler, tender, and all parts and appurtenances thereof are in proper condition and safe to operate in the service to which the same are put, that the same may be employed in the active service of such carrier without unnecessary peril to life or limb, * * *."
Whether, at the time of the injury, the locomotive was "in use" or being "used on its line" depends upon certain undisputed facts. The engine had reached Gainesville and there ended its run. The engineer and fireman had left and the hostler had thereupon taken over, moving the engine eventually to the service track and inspection pit at the round-house to be serviced by plaintiff before it was again put in use. There plaintiff completed his duties including, as we have seen, placing sand, oil and water in their proper places, filling the lubricators and, in general, doing anything else the engine needed to have done in order to put it in condition for use. He was the only person on or about the inactive, idle locomotive and his complete duty was to service the engine so that it would be in readiness for future use on another run. Whether there was thereafter, in fact, any such use is not shown by the record.
Liability under the Act in question, like that under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Balough v. Ne. Ill. Reg'l Commuter R.R. Corp..
...R.R. Co., 11 Ill.2d 186, 200, 142 N.E.2d 104 (1957)). Metra relies on two long-standing Seventh Circuit cases: Lyle v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 177 F.2d 221 (7th Cir.1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 913, 70 S.Ct. 574, 94 L.Ed. 1339 (1950), and Tisneros v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 197 F.2d 4......
-
Green v. River Terminal Ry. Co.
...railroad's lines, the courts have attempted to demarcate the temporal limits of the Boiler Act. See, e.g., Lyle v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 177 F.2d 221 (7th Cir.1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 913, 70 S.Ct. 574, 94 L.Ed. 1339 (1950); Simpkins v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Comp......
-
Netzer v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...certiorari denied, 282 U.S. 872, 51 S.Ct. 78, 75 L.Ed. 770; Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Hooven, 6 Cir., 297 F. 919; Lyle v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 7 Cir., 177 F.2d 221; Sherry v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 6 Cir., 30 F.2d 487, certiorari denied, 280 U.S. 555, 50 S.Ct. 16, 74 L.Ed. 611; New Yor......
-
Gilliam v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.
...maintains that a locomotive used to support service operations should be viewed differently. See, e.g., Lyle v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 177 F.2d 221 (7th Cir. 1949); Tisneros v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 197 F.2d 466 (7th Cir. 1952). However, in the cases on which Defendant rel......