New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co. v. Banker
| Decision Date | 22 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | 249. |
| Citation | 224 F. 351 |
| Parties | NEW YORK CENT. & H.R.R. CO. v. BANKER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Alex. S. Lyman, of New York City (Robert A. Kutschbock, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Edwin W. Sanford, of Albany, N.Y. (John Vernou Bouvier, Jr., and Wm. Montague Geer, Jr., both of New York City, of counsel) for defendant in error.
Before LACOMBE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
The accident happened on the Hudson River Railroad at Castleton about nine miles south of East Albany, where the tracks run on an embankment parallel to and several feet above the river. Movement of trains on the south-bound (westerly) track, on which all passenger trains run, when not on sidings, is regulated by a succession of semaphore signals on tall posts, which inform the engineer whether the block ahead of him is clear or closed-- i.e., occupied by another train. These signals at the block in question are operated from a tower (No. 95). Running alongside of the southbound main track and to the west of it is another track, called by the employes the 'hog track,' and used by freight trains. This track runs into the main south-bound track a little over 100 feet north of the tower. Trains on the side or hog track are forbidden to exceed a speed of 15 miles an hour; their movement is regulated by a succession of signals, located west of the track on posts much lower than the main semaphore posts, known as 'dwarf' signals. These also are operated by the same towerman, who receives word from a tower or towers to the north of him when a south-bound train is approaching, either on main or on side track. The accident occurred about 4 a.m., and the signals were differently colored lights. All signals, at normal, are such in position or color as indicate 'danger'; they can be changed to 'safety' only by the movement of levers by the man in the tower. About 50 feet south of the last dwarf signal by the side track, said track runs into the main track over a switch, which also is operated by a lever under the control of the towerman. When it is moved one way, the switch leads the train from the side track to the main one; when it is moved the other way, it leads the train into what is called a 'derail.' This is a device to minimize disaster. Should the dwarf signals fail to work, or should the engineer disregard them and run on, instead of stopping his train, it will in a very few feet run off the rail heads into open ground, where there is no roadbed, and after plowing along a bit will perforce have to stop and may be wrecked. But by so doing the risk of precipitating it into the side of a crowded passenger train is avoided. The levers and all the operating parts are ingeniously co-ordinated with each other so as to eliminate as far as possible any carelessness on the part of the towerman. For instance, the switch leading from side to main track being in place and the main track signals indicating danger, the towerman cannot move the levers which change these signals to safety, until he has first moved the lever which throws the switch from main to derail, and has thus eliminated all chance of a train from the side track crashing into the train on the main which the safety signals invite to proceed, often at a high rate of speed. There is nothing in the testimony to suggest that this interlocking mechanism controlling signals and rails was not in perfect order on the night of the accident. Indeed, no charge of that sort was made in the complaint.
What happened was this: A freight train, of which deceased was the locomotive engineer, came down this side track from East Albany to the place of the accident. In the cab with deceased were three other men; he was on the right-hand side, where he could look ahead and pick up the series of dwarf signals; the speed of the train did not exceed the 15 miles which the rules required, probably it was nearer 10 miles an hour. Turning a curve about 1,000 feet above the dwarf signal near tower 95, the train ran upon a straight tangent, which led down to the switch between main track and derail. About the time the train ran upon this tangent the sound of a train on the south-bound main track was heard in the cab. The deceased was at his post, awake, and apparently attentive-- he answered a question of one of the men in the cab as to the time. He ran the train, without further reducing speed or stopping, past the dwarf signal, and, the derail being open it ran off the tracks, and after going a few feet along the untracked ground turned over to the right and fell on the slope, killing Banker, who was found with his hand on the throttle. The question whether or not deceased was negligent was a prominent one in the case. The theory of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skidmore v. Baltimore & OR Co.
...5 Cir., 159 F.2d 985, 988; Home Ins. Co. v. Tidal Co., 2 Cir., 140 F.2d 211, 213. Defendant's counsel misreads New York Central & H. R. R. Co. v. Banker, 2 Cir., 224 F. 351, which expressed a preference for special verdicts in cases under the Employers' Liability Act, 45 U. S.C.A. § 51 et s......
- C.A. Smith Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Parker
-
Auschwitz v. Wabash Ry. Co.
...S. Ct. 1166, 30 L. Ed. 1114;Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. v. Driscoll, 176 Ill. 330, 52 N. E. 921;New York Central & H. Railroad Co. v. Banker, 224 F. 351, 140 C. C. A. 37.’ Another case is Mahutga v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Co., 182 Minn. 362, 234 N. W.......
-
Taber v. Davis, 168.
... ... railroads in New York state from the center of the track was ... 8 feet lateral and 23 feet ... 1166, 30 L.Ed. 1114; New York Central & ... H.R.R.R. Co. v. Banker, 224 F. 351, 140 C.C.A. 37; ... Ford v. McAdoo, 231 N.Y. 155, 131 N.E ... ...