Schantz v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 25 April 1919
• Citation: 173 N.W. 556,42 N.D. 377
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

173 N.W. 556

42 N.D. 377

KASPER SCHANTZ, as Administrator of the Estate of Raphael Schantz, Deceased, Appellant, v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 25, 1919

Rehearing denied June 6, 1919.

Action for personal injuries, in District Court, Morton County Crawford, J. From a judgment entered upon a verdict directed for the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and new trial granted.

Judgment reversed and a new trial granted.

Jacobsen & Murray, for appellant.

"A track repairer engaged in repairing a track over which both interstate and intrastate trains move is embraced within the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act." Thornton, Fed. Employers' Liability Act, 3d ed. § 48, p. 76. Also see cases cited therein; Pedersen v Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 229 U.S. 146, 57 L.Ed. 1125; Moyse v. N. P. R. Co. (Mont.) 108 P. 1062; 8 Thomp. Neg. § 4557.

"An employee working at interstate commerce is protected by the Federal Employers' Liability Act while going to and from his work." Thornton, Fed. Employers' Liability Act, § 55, p. 88; North Carolina R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 246, 58 L.Ed. 591; Southern R. Co. v. Puckett, 37 S.Ct. 703; Erie R. Co. v. Winfield, 37 S.Ct. 556; U. S. Comp. Stat. §§ 8657-8665; Umsted v. Colgate Elev. Co. 18 N.D. 309.

"The fact that the deceased may have been guilty of contributory negligence does not mean that he assumed the risk." Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492, 506, 58 L.Ed. 1062, 1070; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. DeAtley, 36 S.Ct. 564; 8 Thomp. Neg. p. 673, § 4614 and cases cited; N. P. R. R. Co. v. Egland, 163 U.S. 93, 41 L.Ed. 82; Swords v. McDonnell, 31 N.D. 494; Van Duzen Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Schelies (Ohio) 55 N.E. 998; Wheeler v. C. & N.W. I. R. R. Co. 108 N.E. 330; Clinkscales v. Wis. Granite Co. (S.D.) 160 N.W. 843; Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co. (Minn.) 33 N.W. 551.

"A master is liable for injuries to an inexperienced servant in consequence of his attempt to obey a negligent order of one having authority to give the order." 8 Thomp. Neg. p. 580, § 3815. Also §§ 3809, 4924, 5382; 7 Thomp. Neg. § 5382; 83 S.W. 289.

The above case involves an order given to a laborer to jump off a train. Tuckett v. Am. Steam & Hand Laundry (Utah) 84 P. 507; Cook v. St. P. M. & M. R. Co. 24 N.W. 311; Strong v. Iowa C. R. Co. (Iowa) 62 N.W. 799; Swift & Co. v. Creasey, 61 P. 314; Sweet v. C. & N.W. R. Co. (Wis.) 147 N.W. 1054; Flynn v. Modern Steel Structural Co. (Wis.) 134 N.W. 1044; Standard Cement Co. v. Minor (Ind.) 100 N.E. 767; Sexton v. Boston Elev. R. Co. 101 N.E. 1067; Marietta Glass Mfg. Co. v. Bennett, 106 N.E. 419; Rathjen v. C. B. & Q. R. Co. (Neb.) 124 N.W. 473; 8 Thomp. Neg. § 4630; Looney v. Garfield Coal Co. (Iowa) 147 N.W. 129; Breedlove v. Gates (Neb.) 137 N.W. 871; Rathjen v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. (Neb.) 124 N.W. 473, holds that the method of having section men catch on to moving trains in coming from their work is dangerous and renders the company liable. 147 N.W. 1054, 136 N.W. 511, 124 N.W. 473.

Watson, Young, & Conmy, for respondent.

"A master is not answerable for the acts of his servant committed outside his duty, although the particular injury could not have occurred without the facilities afforded by the relation of the servant to his master." Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Palmer, 13 Ind.App. 161, 39 N.E. 881, 41 N.E. 400; Harrell v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. 27 Ind.App. 29, 60 N.E. 717, and many other cases cited; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Gillen, 76 N.E. 1059; Hobbs v. Great Northern R. Co. 142 P. 23; Chattanooga S. R. Co. v. Myers, 37 S.E. 439; Green v. Brainard R. Co. (Minn.) 88 N.W. 974; 3 Elliott, Railroads, p. 1303, and cases cited.

"It is the settled law in North Dakota and in the United States that a section foreman is not a vice principal." Ell v. N. P. R. R. Co. 1 N.D. 336, 48 N.W. 222; B. & O. R. Co. v. Bangle, 149 U.S. 368; see extensive notes in 51 L.R.A. 603, and 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1041; Vanordstrand v. N. P. R. Co. 151 P. 89; Reeve v. N. P. R. Co. L.R.A.1915C, p. 37, 144 P. 63; C. R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Koehler, 147 Ill.App. 147.

"Where there is an absolute safe and safer way to do the work open to the servant, he cannot recover if he chooses the dangerous way and is injured." Morris v. Duluth R. Co. 108 F. 747; Suttle v. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. 144 F. 668; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Mosley (Ga.) 38 S.E. 350; 20 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 146; Bailey, Mast. Liab. p. 169; Iron Co. v. Brenan, 20 Ill.App. 555; Same v. Burk, 12 Ill.App. 369; Cook v. Mining Co. 12 Utah 51, 41 P. 557; Iron Co. v. Carpita (Colo. App.) 40 P. 248; Richardson v. Coal Co. (Wash.) 32 P. 1012; Lewis v. Simpson (Wash.) 29 P. 207; Fritz v. Salt Lake & O. Gas & E. L. Co. (Utah) 56 P. 90; (Colo.) 71 P. 425; (Ga.) 36 S.E. 599; Penn. R. Co. v. O'Shaughessy (Ind.) 23 N.E. 675; Railroad Co. v. Jones, 95 U.S. 439, 440, 442, 443, 24 L.Ed. 506; Railroad Co. v. Houston, 95 U.S. 697, 702, 24 L.Ed. 542; Dawson v. Chicago, R. I. P. R. Co. 52 C.C.A. 286, 114 F. 870; Erie R. Co. v. Kane, 55 C.C.A. 141, 118 F. 235; Kresanowski v. Railroad Co. (C. C.) 18 F. 229; Gilbert v. Burlington R. Co. 128 F. 536; Crothy v. C. & G. W. R. Co. 141 F. 913; American Linseed Co. v. Heins, 141 F. 45.

Assuming a direct and positive order to catch the train, there can be no recovery, as the risk was open and obvious. Umsted v. Colgate Elev. Co. 22 N.D. 249; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Williams, 194 S.W. 920; Travis v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. 73 So. 983; Mundhenke v. Oregon City Mfg. Co. 81 P. 977. Higgins Carpet Co. v. O'Keefe, 25 C.C.A. 222, 51 U. S. App. 81, 79 F. 902, in which a boy fifteen years of age, who had been at work in a room with a picking machine, was assigned to feed it, and permitted his hands to slip into the exposed cogs, which the Factory Act of New York required the master to cover; Buckley v. Mfg. Co. 113 N.Y. 540, 21 N.E. 717, wherein a boy twelve years old slipped and threw his fingers into exposed cogs; Engine Works v. Randall, 100 Ind. 293, 50 Am. Rep. 798, in which a boy nineteen years of age permitted his hands to engage with meshing cogs; Berger v. Ry. Co. 39 Minn. 78, 38 N.W. 814, wherein a boy, in feeding rollers in a boiler making shop, permitted his hands to slip between them; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Marcan, 54 L.R.A. 258, 45 C.C.A. 517, 106 F. 647, in which a block on which a boy of seventeen years of age was standing slipped upon the greasy floor and caused him to throw his hand into a hasher; Glover v. Bolt Co. 153 Mo. 327, 55 S.W. 88, in which a boy engaged in pulling iron from a pile fell, and threw his fingers between closing shears; Sullivan v. Simplex Electrical Co. 178 Mass. 35, 39, 59 N.E. 645, in which the hands of a boy nineteen years of age, who was feeding rubbers between rollers, were caught and injured by them. Glenmont Lumber Co. v. Roy, 126 F. 530; Crothy v. C. & G. W. R. Co. 141 F. 913; St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller, 126 F. 495; Wilson v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co. 71 P. 282; Fitzgerald v. C. B. & Q. R. Co. 114 Ill.App. 118; Myers v. New York C. R. Co. 34 N.Y.S. 807; Baker v. Ry. Co. 64 S.E. 506; Lave Mfg. Co. v. Payne, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 436; McGrath v. Del. & L. Ry. Co. 100 A. 754; L. & N. Ry. Co. v. Dunn, 94 S.E. 661; Lindsey v. Hollerback Co. 92 S.W. 294; Texas R. Co. v. Ellison, 87 S.W. 213; Umsted v. Colgate Elev. Co. 22 N.D. 249; Hanel v. Obrigekewitsch, 39 N.D. 540, 3 A.L.R. 1029, 168 N.W. 45; Capan v. D. & L. Ry. Co. 102 A. 661.

"In this case the Federal court's interpretation of the common law doctrine of assumption of risk should govern." Southern R. Co. v. Gray, 241 U.S. 339; Manson v. G. N. R. Co. 31 N.D. 643; Cook v. N. P. 32 N.D. 340; Hein v. G. N. (N.D.) 159 N.W. 14; Jacobs v. Southern R. Co. 241 U.S. 229.

"The stumbling on the ties was as much responsible for the injury as the giving of the orders. This court has already held there can be no recovery when such a situation presents itself." Black v. Fair Association (N.D.) 164 N.W. 297; Manson v. G. N. Ry. Co. 31 N.D. 643, 155 N.W. 32; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Mealer, 50 F. 725; Scheffer v. Ry. Co. 105 U.S. 249; Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Ealker, 167 S.W. 131; Kellog v. Ry. Co. 94 U.S. 469; G. N. Ry. Co. v. Wiles, 240 U.S. 444; Scherer v. Schlaberg (N.D.) 122 N.W. 1000; Balding v. Andrews & Gage Elev. Co. 12 N.D. 267, 96 N.W. 305.

BRONSON, J. ROBINSON, J., CHRISTIANSON, Ch. J., dissenting.

OPINION

BRONSON, J.

This appeal is taken from a judgment entered upon a direct verdict ordered at the close of plaintiff's case. Raphael Schantz, the deceased, a boy sixteen years of age, was seriously injured in the month of April, 1916, while attempting to board a moving freight train. Thereafter he died in a hospital on August 21, 1916. This action is brought by the administrator of the deceased under the Federal Employers' Liability Act to recover damages due to the alleged negligence of the railway company. On the day of the injury the deceased was in the employ of the company as a section hand with a crew working on the north branch of the defendant railway out of Mandan. He had been so working as a section hand for some six months. Prior to that time the boy had been raised and had worked upon a farm. On the day in question the crew, consisting of seven men, went out to work upon a gasoline speeder provided by the defendant under the direction and supervision of a section foreman, named Peter Barron. On that day they were repairing tracks and putting in new ties on such railway near Harmon, some 10 miles distant from Mandan. About 4:30 P. M. they were ready to go to Mandan and to start out on the speeder, but it was not working well and then the freight train came along. The crucial question in this case is whether the directions or orders...