Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Post
| Decision Date | 14 June 1909 |
| Docket Number | 3,035. |
| Citation | 170 F. 943 |
| Parties | NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. POST. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Charles A. Hart (C. W. Bunn and Charles Donnelly, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
E. E Sharp (C. R. Chapin, on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judge, and CARLAND and POLLOCK District judges.
This was an action to recover for an injury sustained by the plaintiff by falling into an open 'drive wheel drop pit' in a railroad engine house in which he was employed as a boiler maker. Taken in that view which is most favorable to him, the evidence established these facts: As was usual in such engine houses, there were in this one several open pits from 3 to 5 feet in depth, which were intended to facilitate the work of cleansing, caring for, and repairing engines. The pit into which the plaintiff fell was of a customary or standard type, and was intended to be used in removing drive wheels from engines. One corner of it came within 3 feet of a locker in which he kept his dinner pail, some of his clothing, and his tools. For three or four days prior to his injury he had used this locker each morning, noon, and evening, and in so doing had learned that the engine house was not sufficiently lighted at any time and was quite dark in the evening.
In the same way he had learned that between the rails of a track which was 4 1/2 feet in front of his locker there was a long open pit known as an 'ash pit.' The pit into which he fell crossed the long one at right angles, and the end which was nearest his locker extended across the track just mentioned 18 inches, but was somewhat to the right of the locker, rather than in front of it. He had not observed this cross-pit, and did not know how far he safely could move in that direction. He had worked for several months in engine houses, and knew in a general way how they were constructed and how the work therein was performed. He also knew, as was the case, that this engine house was a new one, that the work of moving thereto was still going on, and that the surroundings were in an unsettled state. At the time of his injury he had gone to his locker to deposit his tools therein and to make the usual preparations for going home; his day's work being done. Among his tools was a hand torch which was lighted when he quit work; but he extinguished it and proceeded to his locker in the dark. After reaching...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FW Woolworth Co. v. Davis, 187.
...than a man cannot recover, because of his own negligence, who falls into an unguarded pit while walking in the dark. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Post (C. C. A.) 170 F. 943. And the same court in De Honey v. Harding, 300 F. 696, 699, held one could not recover who fell down an open stairway w......
-
Holt v. Hamiltonbrown Shoe Company
...Co., 106 Mo.App. 726; Kelly v. Calumet Woolen Co., 177 Mass. 128; Chicago Packing & Provision Co. v. Rohan, 47 Ill.App. 640; Railroad v. Post, 170 F. 943; Kehoe v. Stern, 114 N.Y.S. 14; Newport News Beaumeister, 104 Va. 744; Jones v. Moran, 45 Wash. 391; Larson v. Knapp, 98 Wis. 178; Bridge......
-
Hardie v. New York Harbor Dry Dock Corporation
...of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held a workman at fault for going to his locker near an engine pit in the dark. North. Pac. Ry. v. Post, 170 F. 943, 96 C. C. A. 153. So also in The Gladiolus (D. C.) 21 F. 417, affirmed (C. C.) 22 F. 454; The Jersey City (D. C.) 46 F. 134; The Nikolai II (......