Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Teeter

Decision Date10 September 1894
Docket Number382.
Citation63 F. 527
PartiesNORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. TEETER.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

J. H Mitchell, Jr. (Tilden R. Selmes, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Moses E. Clapp (Mr. McDonald and L. D. Barnard, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

CALDWELL Circuit Judges.

This action was brought in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota by the defendant in error Eugene Teeter, against the plaintiff in error, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, to recover for personal injuries received under the following circumstances: The defendant in error, was in the service of the railroad company, as a brakeman on a freight train, from December 31, 1891, until March 9, 1892, on which last-named day he received the injury complained of, while in the act of coupling cars on the side track at jewett's Mills, Wis. At the time the accident occurred, the track where it occurred was covered with a thick slush of snow, ice, and water, to the depth of one or two inches, which concealed from sight the condition of the track under it. At the moment of making the coupling, which was done at a proper place, and in the usual and proper manner, the plaintiff was compelled to take a step forward when his foot went through the slush, and down into a hole in the track from six to twelve inches in depth, which pitched him forward with so much force that, to save himself from falling between the cars and being run over by them, he threw his hands out to catch something to support himself, and one hand caught on the drawbar, and was on the instant crushed as the cars 'slacked back.' He could not see the hole he stepped into on account of the slush, and did not know it was there. There was no testimony tending to show that the hole in the track was of recent origin, or that it was not a defect in the original construction of the track; and there was testimony tending to show that the side track where the injury occurred was not well ballasted or surfaced. The plaintiff had never seen this track when it was not covered or more or less obscured from view by snow and slush, and had never done any work on it at the place where the accident occurred before that day. There were a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant sued out this writ of error.

The defendant, at the close of the whole evidence, asked the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, and the refusal of the court to give this instruction is the first and principal error relied on to reverse the judgment. The request was rightly refused. The company owed the duty to its brakeman to keep its track where the coupling of cars had to be done in a reasonably safe condition for the performance of such work. It was the function of the jury to say, upon a consideration of all the evidence, whether the defendant had discharged this duty, and, if not, whether its neglect to do so was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, unmixed with any negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The jury found these issues against the defendant, and, under the evidence in the case, this court cannot, according to the well-settled rule, disturb their findings. Railroad Co. v.Mortenson (decided by this court at the present term) 63 F. 530; Railroad Co. v. Kelley's adm'rs, 10 U.S.App. 537, 3 C.C.A. 589, and 53 F. 459, and authorities cited.

There was, as there commonly is in all cases of this character, some conflict in the evidence, but it was the province of the jury to say whether and how far the evidence was to be believed. When by giving credit to the plaintiff's evidence, and discrediting that of the defendant, the plaintiff's cause is made out, the court cannot withdraw the case from the consideration of the jury. Railroad Co. v. Conger, 5 C.C.A. 411, 56 F. 20.

The court in its charge, after stating correctly the rules of law applicable to the case under the evidence, added:

'It is the duty of the master to search for latent or hidden defects in appliances furnished the servant to work with, that would render them unsafe; but the servant is required to notice only such defects as are patent to ordinary observation.'

The defendant excepted to this part of the charge. In the brief of the learned counsel for the plaintiff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Caine v. Hagenbarth
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • January 6, 1910
    ......Sharp, 63 F. 533; Railroad Co. v. Conger, 5 C. C. A. 411, 56 F. 20; Railroad Co. v. Teeter, 63 F. 527; Railway Co. v. Lowell, 151. U.S. 209, 14 S.Ct. 281; Connor v. Raddon, 16 Utah. ......
  • Williams v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 2, 1914
    ......646; Davidson v. Railroad, 44 F. 476;. Railroad v. Mosely, 56 F. 1009; Railroad v. Teeter, 63 F. 527; Railroad v. Mugg, 132 Ind. 168; Sweat v. Railroad, 156 Mass. 284; Whitcher. v. ......
  • St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Whittle
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 17, 1896
    ......Railway Co.c. Phillips, 13 C.C.A. 315, 66 F. 35; Railroad Co. v. Teeter, 27 U.S.App. 316, 11 C.C.A. 332, and 63 F. 527; Railroad Co. v. Conger, 12 U.S.App. 240, 5 ......
  • Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sharp
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • September 10, 1894
    ...... right to have the facts of his case tried by a jury. Railroad. Co. v. Teeter (decided by this court at the present term) 63. F. 527; Railroad Co. v. Mortenson (decided by this ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT