Martin v. Atchison Co
| Decision Date | 05 April 1897 |
| Docket Number | No. 170,170 |
| Citation | 41 L.Ed. 1051,166 U.S. 399,17 S.Ct. 603 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. R. CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Neill B. Field, for plaintiff in error.
E. D. Kenna and Robert Dunlap, for defendant in error.
This action was brought by the plaintiff in error to recover damages for injuries sustained by him by being run over by a train on a railroad belonging to the defendant, near Albuquerque, N. M. The case was tried before a jury in the district court of the Second judicial district of that territory, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $8,000. Judgment having been entered, the railroad company took the case by writ of error to the supreme court of the territory, which court reversed the judgment, and directed judgment for the railroad company, and for costs against the plaintiff, who thereupon sued out a writ of error from this court, and the case is now here for review.
On the trial evidence was given showing substantially the following facts: The plaintiff had been employed by the railroad company at Albuquerque, N. M., as a common laborer, 'fixing the road, straightening out the rails, and fixing ties wherever required.' He was about 39 years of age, and had been so employed by the company, through one of its section foremen, for several months prior to the happening of the accident. He was under the orders of the section foreman, and was to do what the foreman told him. The section foreman was employed by the roadmaster, and the foreman employed the men. The roadmaster directed the section foremen what work to do and where to do it. He laid out the work for them, and told them what to do. The section foremen employed the men, and saw that they did the work properly. If the foreman thought a man ought to be discharged, he would see the roadmaster, or send him a request that the man should be discharged, and the roadmaster had the power to discharge him. The men under the section foreman, like the plaintiff, were paid by the agents of the company, who came along the line in a pay car.
On June 5, 1889, while the plaintiff was thus employed, he came to the station at Albuquerque about 6:45 o'clock in the morning for the purpose of going to his work on a hand car with one Mares, his co-laborer, and Charles Smith, his section foreman. The place where they were to work was about 8 or 9 miles north from Albuquerque on the line of the road. A few minutes before 7 the party, consisting of the section foreman, Mares, and the plaintiff, stated on a hand car for the place where they were to work during the day. They went north upon the road for 300 or 400 yards, and there the car was stopped, and the men got off and procured a barrel of water, which was placed on the car, and the men again started north to continue their ride. All three men worked the crank on the hand car, but just as they started Mares said to the foreman that he thought the work train seemed to be starting from Albuquerque towards them. The track at that point was straight, and the view to the station was unobstructed. Plaintiff then turned his head backward towards the station, when the foreman told him not to do that; that he had no business to do it; that it was not his business to watch for trains; and that he, the foreman, would take care of that. Plaintiff thereupon turned his head away from the station, and continued to look north, the way they were going. They worked the crank so that the car was going as rapidly as they could make it, all three men having their heads turned towards the north. In the meantime a work train backed out from the station at Albuquerque, going north, and continued backing rapidly until it was moving at the rate of 17 or 18 miles an hour. Before the men on the hand car had proceeded very far along the road they were overtaken by the work train, which ran over them, killing the foreman and badly injuring the plaintiff and Mares. Neither of the latter had heard the approach of the train. It was under the management of a conductor, and at that time there was a roadmaster on the train who had control of the line of road where the accident occurred. He was not in charge of the running of the train, but the train went to different points on the road as he had occasion to visit them for working purposes. Some of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Marone
... ... 89, 18 Sup.Ct. 40, 42 L.Ed. 390; Northern Pacific Ry. Co ... v. Dixon, 194 U.S. 338, 339, 346, 347, 24 Sup.Ct. 683, ... 48 L.Ed. 1006; Martin v. Atchison, Topeka & S.F. Ry ... Co., 166 U.S. 399, 401, 403, 17 Sup.Ct. 603, 41 L.Ed ... 1051; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bourman, 212 U.S ... ...
-
Merrill v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
... ... Co. v. Whelan, 168 U.S. 86; Nor. P ... R. R. Co. v. Peterson, 162 U.S. 346; New Eng. R. R ... Co. v. Conroy, 175 U.S. 323; Martin v. A. T. & S. F ... R. R., 166 U.S. 399; Oakes v. Mass., 165 U.S ... 363; Nor. P. R. R. Co. v. Hambly, 154 U.S. 349; ... Quebec Steamship ... ...
-
National Mut Ins Co of District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co Inc
... ... to the case, it will be in vain to search in the letter of the constitution for any qualification as to the tribunal where it depends.' Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1816, 1 Wheat. 304, 338, 4 L.Ed. 97 ... There is no anomaly, therefore, in the fact that legislative ... ...
-
American Bridge Co. v. Seeds
... ... engaged in removing the old railroad bridge and in ... constructing a new bridge across the Missouri river at ... Atchison. Piles had been driven into the bed of the river, ... and falsework had been erected upon these piles to support ... the railroad, while the work ... take notice of and prevent an approaching collision of an ... engine and a handcar ( Martin v. Atchison, etc., R ... Co., 166 U.S. 399, 403, 17 Sup.Ct. 603, 41 L.Ed. 1051); ... and by a thousand other acts of negligence of servants of ... ...