Mealman v. Union Pac. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 January 1889
• Citation: 37 F. 189
• Parties: MEALMAN v. UNION PAC. RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

37 F. 189

MEALMAN v. UNION PAC. RY. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

January 10, 1889

Browne & Putnam, for plaintiff.

Teller & Orahood, for defendant.

BREWER J.

In the case of Mealman against the Union Pacific Railway Company there is a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint charges that Mealman, the deceased, was an engineer in the employment of the defendant in its yards, running a switch-engine; that driving that engine towards the round-house, there was a collision between it and another engine driven by another employe of the defendant, the collision resulting in the death of Mealman. His widow is the plaintiff in this suit. The complaint avers that engineers were authorized to move their engines only at the direction of the helpers, and upon their signals, and that such was the rule of the company that Mealman saw the helper of the other engine, and saw no signal, and that in fact he gave no signal, but the engineer of that engine onto the track upon which Mealman was in obedience to the signal of some other party. Now, if it stopped there, it would be a case where there would be the negligence of one engineer causing injury to another engineer in the operation of two engines at the same point. Within the rule said in Randall v. Railroad Co., 109 U.S. 478 3 S.Ct. 322, and within the case of Howard v. Railroad Co. in which I wrote an opinion, 26 F. 837, there would be no liability on the part of the defendant, it being one employe's negligence causing injury to another. Beyond that the complaint goes on to aver that the party who gave the signal in obedience to which the engineer of the other engine started his engine and brought on the collision was the master mechanic, having sole control of the yard; so the case presented is, where one having sole control of a yard issues an order in disregard of the rules of the company whether that act is negligence imputable to the company. There is a line of cases, and there is a doctrine which was recognized by my predecessor, Judge McCRARY, to the effect that the mere matter of subordination determines the liability of the employer; that wherever one party stands subject to the orders of another party whom the company employs, the negligence of the latter is the negligence of the company; so that, if a section boss is guilty of negligence whereby a section hand working under him is injured, the company is responsible. In the case...