Nelson v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 January 1908
• Docket Number: 1,728.
• Citation: 158 F. 92
• Parties: NELSON v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

158 F. 92

NELSON v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

No. 1,728.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

January 16, 1908

G. W Pickle, for plaintiff in error.

W. L Welcker, for defendant in error.

Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.

SEVERENS Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in this cause sought to recover damages for the causing of the death of her husband by the negligence of the defendant railroad company. The deceased was a switchman in its employment in its yards at Knoxville, and was at the time engaged in separating the unsound cars in a train on one of the tracks from the sound ones, and, while engaged in uncoupling two of them, was crushed to death by the impact given to the cars on one side of him by cars of a train backing in from that direction without warning. The crews of both trains were fellow servants, and the ground on which the action is based is that the defendant was guilty of negligence, in that it prescribed no rules in regard to the conduct and movements of trains when backing into a track where its employes were engaged in breaking up and sorting out trains which exposed them to danger. The work in which the deceased was engaged was of a kind which is highly dangerous, and we think upon the circumstances which the evidence tended to show the jury might have found that the defendant was negligent in not prescribing rules for the management of its business in such circumstances, which were calculated to guard its employes from the dangers incident thereto. The yard was large, and several hundred men were employed therein in switching cars and trains from one track to another, and in separating them and taking them to their various destinations. The tracks were numerous, and the movement of cars and trains thereon constant. In Railroad Company v. Doty, 133 F. 870, 67 C.C.A. 38, we recognized the rule contended for by counsel for the plaintiff, that in such a business the railroad company is bound to prescribe and enforce such rules and regulations as are reasonably necessary for the safety of its employes in carrying it on. In the present case it is easy to see that a rule requiring a warning to be given when cars are driven into a place where men might be engaged in coupling and uncoupling cars might have saved the decedent's life.

But the deceased was a competent man. He had been employed in that yard as a switchman for eight or nine months, and was familiar with the manner in which the business was carried on. It is true that during that time he was at work in that part of the yard known as the 'running yard,' out of which cars were run into that part where the cars needing...