Richmond & D. R. Co v. Williams

• Decision Date: 13 June 1889
• Citation: 86 Va. 165,9 S.E. 990
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Williams.

9 S.E. 990

(86 Va. 165)

Richmond & D. R. Co.

v.Williams.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 13, 1889.

Injury to Railroad Emplotb.

Plaintiff, a brakeman, was ordered by the conductor of a freight train to go up on a freight-car, while the train was standing, to let off a brake. The upper round of the ladder was broken, which was unknown to plaintiff, and while he was leaning out, attempting to get on the roof, the conductor signaled the engineer to back up, and, the dead-block being broken, the cars came together, and plaintiff was caught between them and crushed. Held, that the conductor was negligent in starting the engine, knowing the position of plaintiff, and defendant was liable for his neglect.

W. R. Staples and L. C. Berkeley, for plaintiff in error.

Lacy, J. This is a writ of error to a judgment of the corporation court of Danville City, rendered on the 12th day of July, 1888. The action was by the defendant in error for damages for personal injuries sustained while in the employment of the plaintiff in error as a brakeman. The case is as follows: On the 16th day of February, 1888, at 2:45 a. m., the defendant in error was engaged on the crew of the yard-engine, shifting cars in the said city on the side tracks of the said plaintiff in error. It was the duty of the said defendant in error to couple and to uncouple cars. Having made a required coupling, he was directed by the conductor, who was his superior, and not bis fellow-servant, to get upon the top of the cars, and turn off the brakes, he saying: "Hop up, and let her go." He climbed upon the nearest ladder, and, when he reached the top of the car, he reached for the hand-hold to the ladder, and it was gone, had been broken off, and he twisted his body to one side to reach the foot-board over the center of the top of the car, to pull up. At this instant, the defendant in error carrying a lantern on his arm, the conductor signaled the engineer to come back, and by reason of his body being sideways, and the combing or roof of the cars coming very close together, and one dead-block being broken off, the body of the defendant in error was caught and mashed, injuring him seriously. There was a demurrer to the evidence by the plaintiff in error, and a verdict by the jury, subject to the judgment of the court upon the demurrer, for $2,000, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff by the court; whereupon, the case was brought here by writ of error.

The case will be heard and considered here upon principles well understood when the case comes up upon a demurrer to the evidence. See Railroad Co. v. Moore's Adm'r, 78 Va. 93; Ware v. Stephenson, 10 Leigh, 155; Trout v. Railroad Co., 23 Grat. 619; Green v. Judith, 5 Rand. (Va.) 1; Hansbrough's Ex'rs v. Thorn, 3 Leigh, 147; Stephens v. White, 2 Wash. (Va.) 203, 210; Steam-Ship Co. v. Nottinghams, 17 Grat. 115.

The testimony of the plaintiff below, taken as true here, is that the broken hand-hold was unknown to the plaintiff, the defective car having come in that night; that the conductor knew that these cars came so close together as to make it dangerous to go between them when in motion, and that he had so instructed the defendant in error; that the said conductor...