Reynolds v. Boston & M.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1892 |
| Citation | 24 A. 134,64 Vt. 66 |
| Parties | JERRY REYNOLDS v. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
GENERAL TERM, OCTOBER, 1891
Action on the case. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the September term, Orleans county, 1890, Powers, J., presiding. The court directed a verdict for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, to which the plaintiff excepted.
Judgment is reversed and cause remanded.
C A. Prouty and E. A. Cook for the plaintiff.
After the plaintiff rested in the opening of his case the defendant moved for a verdict upon the ground that there was no testimony tending to show that the defendant was negligent in receiving or hauling the cars which caused the injury to the plaintiff, nor in cautioning the plaintiff about the work that he was to do. The plaintiff claimed to recover upon both grounds. The cars causing the injury did not belong to the defendant, were not of its construction, but came to it, in the course of its business, from a connecting road. It is difficult to see any distinction between the liability of the defendant in respect of its own cars, and those belonging to another road coming to it for transportation over its line. If any part of the equipment of a car is not safe and suitable when annexed to its own property, it is doubtful if the statute would compel it to transport cars belonging to others equipped in the same manner. Conceding that the statute imposes an obligation upon the defendant to receive and forward cars coming to it from a connecting line, it may well be questioned whether it could be compelled to receive those dangerous in their construction, or deadly in their use. The defendant urges that in addition to the obligation imposed upon it by statute to receive such cars, that unless it does so, it will lose its through business. Whether such would be the result is at least problematical. It might be the means of compelling connecting roads to provide their cars with suitable equipment. Whatever might be the result in respect of a loss of business, we know of no legal reason for relieving a company from liability for its negligence in order to enable it to retain its business. We think the testimony did not tend to show negligence in the defendant in receiving and forwarding cars equipped with double deadwoods: that with suitable instructions to a brakeman double deadwoods are as safe as single ones; if this was the only question in the case we should be inclined to affirm the ruling of the court below.
The important point in the case is the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant neglected to give him suitable instructions in regard to coupling cars equipped with double deadwoods. Upon this claim, the testimony of the plaintiff tended to show that he was employed by the defendant as a brakeman upon one of its freight trains, and when in the line of his duty, was injured in an attempt to couple two cars equipped with double deadwoods; that freight cars are equipped with deadwoods either single or double; that in coupling cars with single deadwoods, the latter do not meet being prevented from meeting by a shoulder upon the draw-bar, leaving a space between them sufficiently wide for the brakeman to use his arm in handling the coupling pin. That with double deadwoods, when the cars come together, the deadwoods meet. That coupling freight cars is a very dangerous business, with either kind of deadwoods. That he was a young man, ignorant of railroad service, inexperienced in coupling cars, and at the time of the accident had not observed cars with double deadwoods. That defendant employed him, knowing of his ignorance and inexperience, put him at work as brakeman, gave him no instructions as to coupling cars, save as to certain danger from cars loaded with lumber. That within a few days he learned to couple cars with single deadwoods, but that in his first attempt to couple double deadwood cars, he lost an arm. That the manner of coupling the two kinds was essentially different, that in coupling cars equipped with double deadwoods the arm and hand must be kept above or below the deadwoods instead of between them as in the case of single deadwoods, as the double ones meet, while the single ones do not. That double deadwood cars were brought onto the defendant's road daily in large...
To continue reading
Request your trial