Pennsylvania Co. v. Whitcomb
Decision Date | 14 June 1887 |
Citation | 12 N.E. 380,111 Ind. 212 |
Parties | Pennsylvania Co. v. Whitcomb, Adm'r. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
S. Stansifer, for appellant. Adams & Michener and G. M. Wright, for appellee.
Millard Spurlin was in the service of the appellant as a brakeman and was killed, while engaged in the line of his duty, in coupling cars. The complaint of the appellee, who sues as the administrator of Spurlin, alleges, among other things, that
The appellant answered in several paragraphs, but we regard the controlling question the same upon all of these paragraphs; for the sufficiency of all of them depends upon what is alleged to be a contract entered into between appellant and the appellee's intestate. That contract is averred to be evidenced by a circular issued by the appellant, and assented to by the intestate. Omitting immaterial and formal parts, the circular and the alleged agreement of the decedent read as follows:
“Coupling cars by hand is dangerous and unnecessary. This work can be as effectually done by the use of a coupling stick, which will be supplied to employes by yard-masters at Louisville, Jeffersonville, Columbus, Madison, and Indianapolis. From this date the company will not assume any liability or pay any expenses incurred by employes on account of injuries received in coupling cars. E. W. McKenna, Superintendent.
I hereby acknowledge the receipt of a copy of the above circular.
M. Spurlin.”
It is averred in the answer that during all the time that Spurlin was in the appellant's service a full supply of coupling sticks was kept with the yard-masters at Louisville, Jeffersonville, Columbus, Madison, and Indianapolis,
It is undoubtedly the duty of the employer to provide the employe with a safe working place, and with safe machinery and appliances. The employer is not bound to exercise the highest degree of skill and care in discharging this duty, but he is required to exercise ordinary care and skill. Kruger v. Louisville, etc., Co., 11 N. E. Rep. 957, (May 17, 1887;) Bradbury v. Goodwin, 108 Ind. 286, 9 N. E. Rep. 302; Pittsburgh, etc., Co. v. Adams, 105 Ind. 151, 5 N. E. Rep. 187; Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Rowan, 104 Ind. 88, 3 N. E. Rep. 627; Indiana Car Co. v. Parker, 100 Ind. 181, and cases cited. This duty is one which the law enjoins upon the master, and it is one which cannot be so delegated as to relieve him from responsibility. The agent to whom it is intrusted, whatever his rank may be, acts as the master in discharging it. He is in the master's place. Kruger v. Louisville, etc., Co., supra, and cases cited; Indiana Car Co. v. Parker, supra, and cases cited; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Herbert, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 590, 33 Alb. Law J. 288. In the case last cited the authorities are reviewed, and the court said:
These principles, so confidently relied upon by the appellee, by no means solve the questions presented by these answers. Duties rest upon the employe as well as upon the employer. Obligations are imposed upon the one by law, as well as upon the other. One of these obligations imposed upon those who enter another's employment is that he shall assume the risks and dangers incident to that employment which are known to him, or which by the exercise of reasonable care he might have known. No one is bound to remain in a service which he is informed is dangerous; and, if an employe does voluntarily continue in the master's service after notice of its dangers, he assumes all risks arising from the known dangers. Umback v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 83 Ind. 191;Louisville, etc., Co. v. Orr, 84 Ind. 50;Bradbury v. Goodwin, supra; Lake Shore, etc., Co. v. Stupak, 8 N. E. Rep. 630; Indiana, etc., Co. v. Dailey, 10 N. E. Rep. 631, (this term;) Hatt v. Nay, 10 N. E. Rep. 807. The risks which the employe assumes are, however, such as are incident to his service, and such as arise in cases where ordinarily safe machinery and appliances are provided. If machinery of an unusual and more dangerous character is provided, and the employe has no notice of the danger, then he does not assume the risk attendant upon its use. Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Rowan, supra. If the deceased continued in the master's service after the danger of coupling cars was made known to him as incidental to his service, he voluntarily assumed the risk, and it is very doubtful whether the complaint is good. This we say because it does not aver that the cars were not ordinary ones, and the danger from coupling them an unusual one. But, as no assault is made upon the complaint, we do not pass upon its sufficiency. It is necessary, however, to speak of the character of the complaint, for the question is whether the answer is good to the complaint as drawn, and not whether it would be good in any case. It is difficult, we may further add, to perceive how this action can be maintained without showing that the danger was not incident to the service, or the cars of an unusual kind; but on this phase of the subject we express no direct opinion.
The circular warns the employes that the coupling of all cars by hand is dangerous. Its warning is not confined to cars of a particular class, but it extends to all kinds and all classes. Nor is it simply a warning notice. It is much more. It is a warning and a direction. It instructs all employes to couple all cars with a coupling stick, and forbids the coupling by hand. This is its legal meaning and effect. By clear and necessary implication, it forbids the coupling of cars by hand, and commands that it be always done by the instruments provided for that purpose. We very much doubt whether an employe who remains in service after such a warning, and who disobeys the instructions received from his employer, can recover without at least affirmatively showing that obedience would have caused greater danger than disobedience, or that obedience was not practicable under the circumstances of the particular case. Buzzell v. Laconia, etc., Co., 48 Me. 113...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Indiana, I.&I.R. Co. v. Bundy
...and situations with such safeguards as ordinary prudence requires. Railroad Co. v. Rowan, 104 Ind. 88, 3 N. E. 627;Pennsylvania Co. v. Whitcomb, 111 Ind. 212, 12 N. E. 380; Railroad Co. v. Duel, 134 Ind. 156, 33 N. E. 355, and cases cited. The evidence adduced is not of a character to warra......
-
Wellston Coal Co. v. Smith
... ... 501, 30 P. 249,31 ... Am.St.Rep. 335; Elledge v. Railway Co., 100 Cal. 282, 34 P ... 720,38 Am.St.Rep. 290; Justice v. Pennsylvania Co., 130 Ind ... 321, 30 N.E. 303; Loughlin v. State, 105 N.Y. 159, 11 N.E ... 371; Car Co. v. Parker, 100 Ind. 181; Railway Co. v. Fox, 31 ... 77] Co. v. McKee, 37 ... Kan. 592, 15 P. 484; Daves v. Southern P. Co., 98 Cal. 19, 32 ... P. 708,35 Am.St.Rep. 133; Pennsylvania Co. v. Whitcomb, 111 ... Ind. 212, 12 N.E. 380; Fisher v. Railroad Co., 22 Or. 533, 30 ... P. 425,16 L.R.A. 519; Brown v. Railway Co., 31 Minn. 553, 18 ... N.W ... ...
-
Overby v. Chesapeake
...111. 244; 32 Mich. 411; 83 Va. 295; 122 U. S. 195; 78 Va. 709; Whar. Xeg. (2d Ed.) §§ 213, 214; Cool Torts 551, 552; Bea. Con. Neg. § 140; 111 Ind. 212; 69 Tex. 665; 55 Wis. 50; 33 Ohio St. 227; Id. 468; 34 W. Va. 500; 1 Shear. & Red. Xeg. § 202; Rog. Ex. Tes. 26; 97 N. Y. 507, 513; 23 W. V......
-
Speight v. Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Co.
... ... failed to read the rule. ( Brennan v. Mich. Cent. R. Co ... [Mich.], 53 N.W. 358; Penn Co. v. Whitcomb ... [Ind.], 12 N.E. 380; 1 Labatt on Master and Servant, ... sec. 227, p. 503; Matchet v. Cincinnati, etc., Co ... [Ind.], 31 N.E. 792; Lake ... ...