Pittsburgh & Connellsville Railroad Co. v. Sentmeyer
| Decision Date | 05 January 1880 |
| Citation | 92 Pa. 276 |
| Parties | Pittsburgh & Connellsville Railroad Co. <I>versus</I> Sentmeyer. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and TRUNKEY, JJ. STERRETT and GREEN, JJ., absent
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette county: Of October and November Term 1877, No. 289.
D. Kaine and Wm. H. Coldren, for plaintiff in error.—An employee entering the service of any railroad company assumes all the risks incident to that business upon that particular line or road, and is presumed to inform himself of the location and permanent construction thereof: Devitt v. The Pacific Railroad Company, 3 American Railway Cases 533. All the questions in the case at bar were ruled in this case.
The deceased clearly entered this employment and assumed this particular risk, with knowledge thereof, and so remaining for many months had every opportunity of informing himself, and when he left the engine and passed over the roof of the cars he left his duty and was there as a stranger, and the risk was his own: Owen v. New York Central Railroad Co., 1 Lansing 108.
C. E. Boyle, for defendants in error.—The deceased when he entered the employment of the company assumed only the ordinary and reasonable risks incident to said employment: Patterson v. P. & C. Railroad Co., 26 P. F. Smith 389. The plaintiff's case was based on the charge that by permitting the bridge to be erected and maintained, as it did, the company was guilty of negligence — that it was not one of the risks that Sentmeyer assumed. This question was fairly and properly submitted to the jury; and they found it in favor of plaintiffs: Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Kilgore, 8 Casey 292; Sh. & Redf. Neg., sect. 283.
The main question in the case was as to whether Sentmeyer had been guilty of contributory negligence. The burden of proving this was on the company: Beatty v. Gilmore, 4 Harris 463; Canal Co. v. Bentley, 16 P. F. Smith 30; C. & P. Railroad Co. v. Rowan, Id. 393.
In the case of Owen v. New York Central Railroad Co., 1 Lansing 108, relied on by plaintiff in error, it appears "the brakeman entered into his employment with knowledge of the bridge's position and height, and had opportunity to learn of its continuance." So in Devitt v. Pacific Railroad Co., 3 Am. Railway Reports 533 (Missouri), it appeared that the deceased "had been repeatedly warned to look out for this and other bridges." * * "That he knew the danger of coming in contact with said bridge, that his attention had been called to the danger of injury from the lowness of bridges on his route, and that with this knowledge, &c."
Where a railroad company voluntarily subjects its employees to dangers which it ought to provide against, and an accident happens to an employee from a want of proper provision against such dangers, the company is undoubtedly liable. But, on the other hand, it is not liable for accident happening from the ordinary risks and dangers of the business, for it is a legal presumption that the servant assumed the risk of such accidents when he entered the service of the company. Patterson v. Railroad Co., 26 P. F. Smith 389. Again, we may further extend this rule by saying, that the servant, or employee, assumes the risk of all dangers, however they may arise, against which he may protect himself by the exercise of ordinary observation and care. Furthermore, the master's liability arises from the fact that he subjects his servant to dangers which in good faith he ought to provide against, but he is not responsible for those dangers to which the servant voluntarily subjects himself, though he does so without carelessness or breach of duty. These principles govern this case. The bridge, by which young Sentmeyer was killed, was fifteen feet and six inches in height from the top of the railroad rails, whilst the height of the cars varied from nine to ten and one-half feet; thus, for the lower cars the bridge was sufficiently high, but for the higher ones,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valjago v. Carnegie Steel Company
...foundation of the principle: Frazie v. Penna. R.R. Co., 38 Pa. 104; Mansfield Coal & Coke Co. v. McEnery, 91 Pa. 185; Pittsburg, etc., R.R. Co. v. Sentmeyer, 92 Pa. 276; Green, etc., Pass. Ry. Co. v. Bresmer, 97 Pa. Rummell v. Dilworth, 111 Pa. 343; Wannamaker v. Burke, 111 Pa. 423; Brossma......
-
Bellows v. Pennsylvania & N.Y. Canal & R.R. Co.
...bound only to provide appliances that may be used in safety by the exercise of reasonable care on the part of the employee: P. & C.R.R. v. Sentmeyer, 92 Pa. 276; Rummel Dilworth, 111 Pa. 343; Brossman v. L.V.R.R., 113 Pa. 490; Allison Mfg. Co. v. McCormick, 118 Pa. 519; P. & R.R. Co. v. Hug......
-
Boyd v. Harris
... ... Lowber Welsh, Receivers of the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company, Appellants No. 212Supreme Court of PennsylvaniaJuly 15, 1896 ... of ordinary observation and care: Pittsburg etc. R.R. v ... Sentmeyer, 92 Pa. 276; Brossman v. Lehigh Val ... R.R., 113 Pa. 490; Kelly v. B. & ... It was said in Sentmeyer v. The Pittsburg and ... Connellsville Railroad Company, 92 Pa. 276, that an ... employee assumes the risk of ... ...
-
Bannon v. Lutz
... ... 348; Pa. R.R. v. Mooney, 126 Pa ... 244; Marland v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R., 123 Pa ... 487; Mensch v. R.R., 150 Pa. 598; Kehler v ... Pass. Ry. v. Bresmer, 97 ... Pa. 103; Pittsburgh & Connellsville R.R. v ... Sentmeyer, 92 Pa. 276; Lewis v. Seifert, 116 ... Pa. 628; ... ...