Roy Brooks v. Central Sainte Jeanne

Decision Date26 May 1913
Docket NumberNo. 283,283
PartiesROY BROOKS, Plff. in Err., v. CENTRAL SAINTE JEANNE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. N. B. K. Pettingill and George H. Lamar for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 689-691 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Benjamin S. Minor, Hugh B. Rowland, and Colley W. Bell for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 691-692 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action for personal injuries suffered in Porto Rico. The declaration alleges that the plaintiff, at the defendant's request, made a trip on an automobile of the latter 'for the purpose of aiding other employees of the defendant in moving a certain boiler which was the property of the defendant,' and that, in returning from the trip, the automobile was so negligently operated by the defendant, its agents and employees, that it was driven into a ditch and the plaintiff was badly hurt. There was a trial by jury, in which, at the end of the plaintiff's evidence, the judge directed a verdict for the defendant and the plaintiff excepted. The evidence showed that the machine was driven by a servant of the defendant, so that it appeared in proof that the plaintiff was suing for an injury caused by a fellow servant, as is to be inferred from the face of the declaration itself.

Notwithstanding the admission that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, imported by the words 'for the purpose of aiding other employees,' it is argued that the plaintiff was not a fellow servant, and therefore, although the contention hardly is open, the substance of the testimony may be stated. The plaintiff's general employers had sold a sugar mill to the Central, delivered in New Orleans. At the request of the Central they had sent over the plaintiff to put up a chimney, a battery of six boilers, and a bagasse track. While at the work he seems to have been paid by the defendant and was under the direction of its chief engineer. The chimney had been nearly finished and the next work was to set up the boilers, but they had not arrived. The man in charge of the transportation directed the plaintiff to go and help to get a boiler, which, after asking the chief engineer for leave, he did. When they got to the boiler there were not enough machines to haul it, so that they had to return to the Central. On the way the driver seems to have been more or less drunk, and negligently, it must be assumed, upset the machine.

Whether the plaintiff was in the general employ of the defendant, as he seems to have been, or not, the service that he consented to render was the defendant's work. In rendering that, at least, he came under its orders and became its servant. Assuming in his favor that he was a volunteer, that fact did not enlarge his rights. Degg v. Midland R. Co. 1 Hurlst. & N. 773, 26 L. J. Exch. N. S. 171, 3 Jur. N. S. 395, 5 Week. Rep. 364; Potter v. Faulkner, 1 Best & S. 800, 31 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 30, 8 Jur. N. S. 259, 5 L. T. N. S. 455, 10 Week. Rep. 93; Barstow v. Old Colony R. Co. 143 Mass. 535, 536, 10 N. E. 255; Wischam v. Rickards, 136 Pa. 109, 10 L.R.A. 97, 20 Atl. 532. Other cases will be found in 2 Labatt, Mast. & S. § 631. He was the defendant's servant not only while actually at work on the boiler, but during the trip taken for the purpose of doing the work. Northern P. R. Co. v. Peterson, 162 U. S. 346, 358, 40 L. ed. 994, 998, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 843; Martin v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 166 U. S. 399, 403, 41 L. ed. 1051, 1052, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 603; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Bourman, 212 U. S. 536, 538, 539, 53 L. ed. 641, 643, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 319. And he was fellow servant with the driver of the machine. Martin v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. supra; Northern P. R. Co. v. Dixon, 194 U. S. 338, 48 L. ed. 1006, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 683; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Bourman, 212 U. S. 536, 541, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Union Pac. R. Co. v. Marone
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 26 Octubre 1917
    ... ... 368, 370, 13 Sup.Ct. 914, 37 ... L.Ed. 772; Gardner v. Michigan Central R.R. Co., 150 ... U.S. 349, 358, 14 Sup.Ct. 140, 37 L.Ed. 1107; Beutler ... Co., 224 U.S. 85, 32 Sup.Ct. 402, 56 ... L.Ed. 679; Brooks v. Central Sainte Jeanne, 228 U.S ... 688, 694, 33 Sup.Ct. 700, ... ...
  • Buckley v. United Gas Public Service Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 1 Junio 1936
    ... ... Knox & Lincoln Railroad, 68 Me ... 49, 28 Am. Rep. 16; Brooks v. Central Sainte Jeanne, ... 228 U.S. 688, 33 S.Ct. 700, 57 L.Ed. 1025; ... ...
  • Lakube v. Cohen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 26 Octubre 1939
    ...Murphy, Mass., 4 N.E.2d 310;Alderman v. Noble, Mass., 4 N.E.2d 619;Donovan v. Johnson, Mass., 16 N.E.2d 62;Brooks v. Central Sainte Jeanne, 228 U.S. 688, 33 S.Ct. 700, 57 L.Ed. 1025;Connelly v. Allen, 3 Cir., 269 F. 788;Rook v. Schultz, 100 Or. 482, 198 P. 234. The obligation imposed upon t......
  • Williams v. Benway, CASE NO.: 8:11-cv-1840-T-23TGW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 30 Enero 2012
    ...and applied immediately to automobiles. Philadelphia & Reading R. Co. v. Derby, 55 U.S. 468, 485-87 (1852); Brooks v. Cent. Sainte Jeanne, 228 U.S. 688, 693 (1913) (Holmes, J.). Also long ago, an exception from liability arose for an employer whose employeedistinctly abandons the employer's......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT