Russell v. Richmond & D. R. Co.

Decision Date14 August 1891
PartiesRUSSELL v. RICHMOND & D.R. CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Where a railroad company by rule forbids its brakemen going between freight cars to couple them, and provides that coupling must be done by means of a stick, the company is not liable for the death of a brakeman who, in consideration of employment by the company, signed a written recognition of such rule waiving all liability of the company to him, for any results of disobedience thereof, when it appears that he understood what he was signing, that the company had provided coupling sticks for the train, and that the death was the result of disobedience of the rule.

Plaintiff's intestate, a brakeman on the railroad of defendant, was crushed to death between the cars on 12th February, 1890. He was brakeman on a freight train which had stopped at Westminster, in this state, and was on the siding, awaiting a passenger train. The train had been divided so as not to obstruct a crossing, and a car at the inner end of the division was loaded with lumber, with pieces projecting over this end of the car. When the passenger train passed, and the freight train was to be reunited, the intestate went to couple the cars. He went in between the two divisions without a stick, and, the locomotive backing down the front end of the train, he was caught and killed instantly. The testimony of plaintiff tended to show that the coupling gear was defective, and the mode of loading the car with lumber improper and dangerous, and that after the accident there was some neglect of the body. For the defense there was given in evidence the following paper, signed by the intestate on 24th January, 1890:

'RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, A & C. DIVISION.

'ATLANTA GA., Jan. 24th, 1890.

'I fully understand that the rules of the Richmond & Danville R R. Company positively prohibit brakemen from coupling or uncoupling cars, except with a stick, and that brakemen or others must not go between cars, under any circumstances, for the purpose of coupling or uncoupling, or for adjusting pins etc., when an engine is attached to such cars or train; and in consideration of being employed by said company, I hereby agree to be bound by said rule, and waived all or any liability of said company to me for any results of disobedience or infraction thereof.

HIS PAT X RUSSELL. MARK.

'Witness: Z. V. RAINEY.

'I hereby certify that before Pat Russell signed the above, as appears by 'his mark,' I read the same over to him, and carefully explained it.

'Z. V. RAINEY.'

It was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Alcorn v. Chicago & A.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1891
    ...v. Propst, 83 Ala. 518; Sloan v. Railroad, 12 S.E. 179; Bennett v. Railroad, 49 N.W. 408; Schaub v. Railroad, 16 S.W. 924; Russell v. Railroad, 47 F. 204. (12) The demurrer the evidence of plaintiff should have been sustained. There was absolutely no evidence of actual notice to defendant o......
  • Wojtylak v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 16, 1905
    ...v. Railroad, 119 Mo. 203; Hudson v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 445; Railroad v. Finley, 12 C.C.A. 595; Railroad v. Reesman, 9 C.C.A. 20; Russell v. Railroad, 47 F. 204; Hamman v. Coal & Coke Co., 156 Mo. 243; Agan Shannon, 103 Mo. 665. (b) Crane v. Railroad, 87 Mo. 595; Camp v. Heelan, 43 Mo. 591; W......
  • Erie R. Co. v. Kane
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 15, 1902
    ...negligence which defeats his right to hold the master liable for an injury of which such negligence is the proximate cause. Russell v. Railroad Co. (C.C.) 47 F. 204; v. Railroad Co. (C.C.) 47 F. 687; Railroad Co. v. Reesman, 19 U.S.App. 596, 9 C.C.A. 20, 60 F. 370; Railway Co. v. Dye, 16 C.......
  • Lake Erie & W.R. Co. v. Craig
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • May 4, 1897
    ... ... to hold the master liable for an injury of which such ... negligence is the proximate cause. Russell v. Railroad ... Co., 47 F. 204; Brooks v. Railroad co., 47 F ... 687; Railroad Co. v. Reesman, 19 U.S.App. 596, 9 ... C.C.A. 20, and 60 F ... ...
  • 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