Padgett v. Seabd. Air Line Ry

• Decision Date: 18 November 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 8981.)
• Citation: 99 S.C. 364,83 S.E. 633
• Parties: PADGETT. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

83 S.E. 633

99 S.C. 364

PADGETT.

v.SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.

(No. 8981.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 18, 1914.

Interstate Commerce Law—Employers' Liability Act.

In an action under the federal Employers' Liability Act (Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 [U. S. Com p. St. 1913, § 8657]) for the death of a railroad engineer, who was killed by falling into a roundhouse pit, in which the issues were whether he went into the roundhouse in the course of his employment or for purposes of his own, whether the company was negligent, and whether deceased assumed the risk, plaintiff held entitled to recover.

2. Commerce (§ 27^*)—Regulation—Federal Employers' Liability Act.

In an action under the federal Employers' Liability Act for the death of an engineer by falling into a roundhouse pit, plaintiff cannot recover if the engineer went into the roundhouse for purposes of his own, or if there is a failure of evidence from which it can be inferred that he went there for the purposes of his employment; since plaintiff must show that deceased was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of his death.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Commerce, Cent. Dig. § 25; Dec. Dig. § 27.*]

Hydrick and Gage, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Lexington County; T. H. Spain, Judge.

Action by Clara V. Padgett, as administratrix of the estate of Lewis Padgett, deceased, against the Seaboard Air Line Railway. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

C. M. Efird, of Lexington, and Lyles & Lyles, of Columbia, for appellant.

W. Boyd Evans, of Columbia, Thurmond, Timmerman & Callison, of Lexington, Melton & Sturkie, of Columbia, Jas. H. Fanning, of Springfield, and A. D. Martin, of Lexington, for respondent.

FRASER, J. [1] Lewis H. Padgett was an engineer on the Seaboard Air Line Railway. He had been running a freight train, but in the first part of January, 1913, he was promoted to the passenger service, and was given a run between Columbia, S. C, and Savannah, Ga., and so was engaged in interstate commerce. When the train reached Columbia, the engine was detached and carried to the yard at Cayce, a station near Columbia. The engineer ran his engine into the yard near the roundhouse, and left it upon a siding in the yard. He left his engine about 10:30 on the 11th day of January, 1913. Mr. Padgett's regular run would have required him to leave Columbia at 6:10 a. m. on the morning of the 12th. He was detained in the yard for a while so that he might take out another train, if necessary. It was not necessary, and he was notified that he would make his regular run. The company had built a small boarding house at Cayce for the convenience of its trainmen, but let out the management of the house to a private party. When Mr. Padgett was notified that he would be required to make his regular run, he went to the boarding house and found it full. He then went back on the yard, into the roundhouse, and into an engine, and went to sleep. At about 4:30 o'clock on the morning of the 12th, the engine in which Mr. Padgett was asleep was run out of the roundhouse down to the coal chute, to be supplied with coal, water, etc., for its trip. At the coal chute Mr. Padgett waked and got off the engine. He inquired where his engine was and was told it was in the roundhouse on track No. 3. The last seen of Mr. Padgett alive, he was going in the direction of the roundhouse. When it came time to call him he could not be found, and the engine went off without him. A little later he was found in an open, uncovered pit in the roundhouse dead. His engine had been standing with the step over the pit. The pit was a little over eight feet deep. There were no lights in the roundhouse.

Suit was brought in behalf of his widow and dependent children for negligence under the federal Employers' Liability Act. The defendant answered, denying negligence. It denied that the deceased was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of his death. It pleaded that the deceased was a trespasser in the roundhouse, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk. The judgment was for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed on numerous exceptions, but argues three propositions:

I. "Padgett did not come to his death while employed in interstate commerce."

The defendant claimed that the rules required the engineer to leave his engine in the yard; that he was then to go into the machinery room and "write off" and leavea memorandum as to repairs; that he had no duty that called him into the roundhouse; that a "hostler" then took charge of the engine, and if any repairs were to be made the hostler took it into the roundhouse, where the-machinists made the repairs, and the hostler went to the roundhouse for the engine, took it out, and carried it off for coal, water, etc., and put it back on the side track; that the engineer then inspected it, and if it was found to be in proper condition he took charge of it and went out on his run; that Mr. Padgett ended his service at 10:30 o'clock on the night of the 11th, and was not required to go to work until about 5:30 on the morning of the 12th, and he was killed between those hours; hence he was not engaged in the service of the railway when killed.

The defendant asked for a direction of verdict on the ground that there was no evidence that the deceased was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of his death. This was refused. The exact question is: For what purpose did Padgett go into the roundhouse? If he went there for any purpose of his own, or there is an utter failure of evidence to prove any circumstances from which his purpose can be inferred, then the verdict ought to have been directed.

There was evidence to show that, when the engine came into the yard that night, it had a hot box and needed repairs; that the rule required the engineer to inspect his engine only about a half hour before the leaving time. There was no intimation that he was forbidden to inspect it before. There was evidence that, if the inspection was made at the required hour and it was found that the repairs had not been made or improperly made, then the engine would have to be returned to the roundhouse to have the repairs properly made; that the repairs would take time, and the time necessary would have to be taken even if it delayed the departure of his train. The evidence is circumstantial, but conclusions may be drawn from circumstances. On the trial appellant...