Reading Co. v. Haldeman
| Decision Date | 07 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 3592.,3592. |
| Parties | READING CO. v. HALDEMAN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Edward L. Katzenbach and George Gildea, both of Trenton, N. J., for plaintiff in error.
Charles A. Ludlow and Ralph W. Botham, both of New York City, for defendant in error.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
In this case it appears that Reading Company, the defendant railroad, had a yard at Tamaqua, Pa., where its engines at the end of their runs were hostled, oiled, refueled, inspected, and, if necessary, received minor repairs. The yard branched off by switches into several parallel tracks, running approximately north and south, and all east of the main through track, which skirted the west side of the yard. The most easterly track, which was also used as a running track, was called the coal dock track, from the coal bins adjoining it. To the west of this track was the "dirty" or receiving track, where entering engines were received. Next was the "clean" track, where cleaned engines were placed; then came the wreck train track; next the caboose track; and next siding tracks, adjoining one of the main line tracks, which is called No. 4. Fred Haldeman, the decedent, had been employed in this yard for a number of years; his duties being to oil, inspect, and make light repairs. The engines were usually backed tank first into the yard, and there was no custom to in any way signal their coming, and, while it was customary when engines were backed to have a trainman on the rear of the engine until it crossed a street at the head of the yard, no such lookout was kept after the street was crossed. The yard tracks were in constant use; the proof being that the entering engines averaged more than one every 10 minutes, and that the noise was such that it was difficult, if not, indeed, impossible, to hear.
The plaintiff's proofs show that about the middle of an afternoon Haldeman was coming down along the easterly side of the "dirty" track, evidently intending to go to his shanty or toolhouse, which was on the east side of the coal dock track. As a pusher engine at the rear of a freight train going north passed Haldeman, its engineer and Haldeman saluted each other. While passing Haldeman, the engineer saw an engine backing down the coal track, and "after Fred Haldeman saluted me, he only took — well, he might have taken — three or four steps; he stepped to go over the track, and was hit by the tank." His testimony describing the accident was as follows:
Another witness called by the plaintiff was Berry, an engineer on the second pusher engine, who testified to the same effect as Ackerman, saying Haldeman also saluted him. His testimony was:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shidloski v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co.
... ... Aeirfeitz v. Humphreys, 145 U.S. 418; Railroad ... Co. v. Nixon, 271 U.S. 218; Reading Co. v ... Haldeman, 20 F.2d 53; Mich. Cent. Railroad Co. v ... Zimmerman, 24 F.2d 23; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v ... Wyer, 8 F.2d 30; ... ...
-
Armstrong v. Mobile & O. R. Co.
... ... 165; C. & O. Railroad Co. v ... Nixon, 271 U.S. 218, 70 L.Ed. 914; Connelly v ... Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 201 F. 54; Reading Co. v ... Haldeman, 20 F.2d 53; N. & W. Railroad Co. v ... Collingsworth, 32 F. 561; Biemacki v. Penn. Ry ... Co., 45 F.2d 677. (9) The ... ...
-
Martin v. Wabash Ry. Co.
...v. Railway Co., 205 Mo. 393, 408; Gabal v. Railroad Co., 251 Mo. 257, 267; and Bruce v. Railroad Co., 271 S.W. 762, 765. In Reading Co. v. Haldeman, 20 F.2d 53, 55, a case ruled by the Federal Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, recovery of damages was sought for the death of a yard employee, ......
-
Berry v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
...on the lookout and protect himself against trains, and he could not rely upon a warning to advise him of their approach. Reading Co. v. Haldeman, 20 F.2d 53; C. & O. Railroad v. Nixon, 271 U.S. 218, 70 914; Aerkfetz v. Humphreys, 145 U.S. 418, 36 L.Ed. 758. (c) Plaintiff is in no position t......