Morris v. Duluth, S.S. & A. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 April 1901 |
| Docket Number | 1,496 |
| Parties | MORRIS v. DULUTH, S.S. & A. RY CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
A railway train was equipped with two levers,--one on each side of it,--to enable the brakeman to draw a pin between two cars without entering between them. The machinery attached to the lever on the side of the plaintiff was out of order, while that attached to the lever on the opposite side was in good condition. Held, the fact that the brakeman chose to, and did, step in between the cars while in motion to draw the pin, instead of using the lever on the opposite side of the train, provided for the purpose, was evidence of negligence contributing to an injury resulting from his stumbling while walking between the cars.
Syllabus by the Court
Railway companies have the right to exercise reasonable judgment and discretion in the construction of their roadbeds, rails, and safety appliances.
A railway company used a piece of lumber one inch thicker, six inches wider, and one foot longer than the customary blocking to fill the space between a guard rail and a main rail. Held than use of this blocking of unusual size was but the rightful exercise of the judgment of the company, and was no evidence of negligence, or of liability for an injury resulting from a brakeman's stumbling over it.
When there is a comparatively safe and a more dangerous way known to a servant, by means of which he may discharge his duty, it is negligence for him to select the more dangerous method and he thereby assumes the risk of the injury which its use entails.
A railway train was equipped with two levers,-- one on each side of it,-- to enable the brakemen to draw a pin between two cars without entering between them. The machinery attached to the lever on the side of the plaintiff was out of order, while that attached to the lever on the opposite side was in good condition. Held, the fact that the brakeman chose to, and did, step in between the cars while in motion to draw the pin, instead of using the lever on the opposite side of the train, provided for the purpose, was evidence of negligence contributing to an injury resulting from his stumbling while walking between the cars.
F. D Larrabee, for plaintiff in error.
M. D Munn (N. M. Thygeson, on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.
In the early morning of April 6, 1899, while it was yet dark, the plaintiff, John Morris, who was the head brakeman of a crew of employes of the defendant, the Duluth South Shore & Atlantic Railway Company, stepping in between two cars which were moving along a side track at the rate of four miles an hour, and walked along with them, for the purpose of uncoupling them, until he stubbed his toes against the blocking of a guard rail, fell, and was so injured that he lost one of his legs. He sued the railway company for negligence in the construction of the blocking over which he stumbled. The company denied that it was negligent, and alleged that his accident was caused by his own carelessness. There was a trial, and at its close the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. This ruling is assigned as error. The assignment presents two questions: Was there any substantial evidence that the defendant was guilty of negligence which caused the injury? And was the plaintiff guilty of any negligence which contributed to it? These questions will be considered in the order in which they have been stated.
The facts disclosed by the evidence which condition the answer to the first question are these: Guard rails on the defendant's railroad were ordinarily slightly curved in form, and were placed about 3 inches distant from the main rail at their nearest points, and 5 or 6 inches distant from these rails at their ends. They were usually 10 or 12 feet long. The ends of the guard rail over whose blocking the plaintiff fell were about 12 inches distant from the main rail. The statutes of the state of Michigan, where this accident happened, required the spaces between the guard rails and the main rails to be blocked, for the purpose of preventing the employes from catching their feet between them; and it is not claimed that the railway company was guilty of any negligence because it used this guard rail, or because it blocked the spaces between the guard rail and the main rail. The contention is that it was negligent because it blocked the space between these rails too much. The customary method of filling the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. York
...should go to the other side; and if, instead of doing so, he goes between them to uncouple them, he is guilty of contributory negligence. 108 F. 747. The Safety Appliance abolishes the defense of assumed risks only; and does not apply to the defense of contributory negligence. 106 S.W. 441;......
-
Johnson v. Chicago & E. I. Ry. Co.
...and the employee assumes the risk of injury. Wise Terminal Co. v. McCormick, 51 S.E. 731; Suttle v. Railroad Co., 144 F. 668; Morris v. Ry. Co., 108 F. 747; Boldt, Adm., v. Railroad Co., 245 U.S. 441. Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, contributory negligence, if found, must be con......
-
Brannock v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
...theory that the true inquiry was whether the employee had needlessly exposed himself to danger. [Grand v. Railroad, 83 Mich. 564; Morris v. Id., 108 F. 747; Dawson v. 114 F. 870; Gilbert v. Railroad, 128 F. 529; Riley v. Id., 133 F. 904; Suttle v. Id., 144 F. 668; Powell v. Id., 159 F. 864.......
-
George v. St Louis & San Francisco R. Co.
...It was conceded that the use of the automatic couplers required the cars to be in motion to be uncoupled. The defendant cited Morris v. Railroad, 108 F. 747, Gilbert v. Railroad, 128 F. 529; but the court refused to follow them, and held the whole question was for the jury. In speaking for ......