Seaboard Air Line Railway v. James Horton
Decision Date | 10 January 1916 |
Docket Number | No. 541,541 |
Citation | 36 S.Ct. 180,239 U.S. 595,60 L.Ed. 458 |
Parties | SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY, Plff. in Err., v. JAMES T. HORTON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Murray Allen for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Clyde A. Douglass and William C. Douglass for defendant in error.
This action, based upon the Federal employers' liability act (35 Stat. at L. 65, chap. 149, 36 Stat. at L. 291, chap. 143, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8662), was under consideration on a former occasion, when a judgment in favor of defendant in error was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. 233 U. S. 492, 58 L. ed. 1062, L.R.A.1915C, 1, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 635, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 475, 8 N. C. C. A. 834. There was a new trial, and the resulting judgment in favor of Horton, the employee, having been affirmed by the supreme court of North Carolina (85 S. E. 218), the case is brought here again, with numerous assignments of error, of which, however, only a few need be noticed.
Plaintiff was injured while in the employ of defendant in interstate commerce. He was an experienced locomotive engineer, and was so employed when injured. His engine was equipped with a Buckner water gauge, a device attached to the boiler head for the purpose of showing the level of the water in the boiler, and consisting of a brass frame inclosing a glass tube 12 or 14 inches long, and 1/2 inch in diameter, the glass being about 3/8 inch thick. The tube was placed vertically, and was connected with the boiler above and below, so that it received water and steam direct from the boiler and under a pressure of 200 pounds. In order to protect the engineer and fireman from injury in case of the bursting of the tube, a thick piece of plain glass, known as a guard glass, should have been in position in slots arranged for the purpose in front of the water tube. Plaintiff took charge of the engine in question in July 27 or 28, 1910, and noticed at that time that the guard glass was missing. He reported this to a roundhouse foreman, to whom such report should properly be made, and asked for a new guard glass. The foreman replied that he had none in stock, but would send for one, and that plaintiff in the meantime should run the engine without one. He did so for about a week, and until August 4th, when the water tube exploded, and the flying glass struck him in the face, causing the injuries upon which the action was grounded.
The principal insistence of defendant (plaintiff in error) is that, upon all the evidence, plaintiff, as a matter of law, assumed the risk of injury arising from the absence of the guard glass. The rule applicable to the situation was expressed by this court upon the former review of the case, in the following terms (233 U. S. 504):
By motions for nonsuit and for dismissal of the action, and by various requests for instructions to the jury, all of which were refused, defendant raised the point that although plaintiff reported the absence of the guard glass to defendant's foreman and received a promise of repair, yet the danger was so imminent that no ordinarily prudent man under the circumstances would have relied upon the promise, and hence plaintiff, as matter of law, assumed the risk of injury.
But we do not think it can be said as matter of law that the danger was so imminent that no ordinarily prudent man under the circumstances would continue in the employment in reliance upon the promise. It was not the function of the guard glass to prevent the bursting of the water tube, but only to limit the effect of such an explosion in case it happened to occur. That there was a constant danger that the tube might explode was abundantly proved, and was admitted by plaintiff. But the tube was designed to withstand the pressure of 200 pounds, and ordinarily did so. It was its proper function to do so. One witness said: 'They may last a day, a week, a month, or a year, or it may last an hour, or shorter.' The jury might reasonably believe that such a water glass would probably not explode in the ordinary use of it unless it was imperfect or defective in some respect other than the absence of the guard glass, and that, since there was no evidence of this, Horton was justified in assuming that the danger of an explosion was not immediately threatening.
There is a substantial difference in the attitude of the employee towards the known dangers arising...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
...Kanawha & M.R. Co. v. Kerse, 239 U.S. 576, 36 S.Ct. 174, 60 L.Ed. 448; judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Horton, 239 U.S. 595, 36 S.Ct. 180, 60 L.Ed. 458; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff Illinois Central R. Co. v. Skaggs, 240 U.S. 66, 36 S.Ct. 249, 60 L.Ed. 5......
-
Kepner v. Railroad Co.
...Railroad, 166 Ky. 490; Halloran v. Union Co., 133 Mo. 470; Debitt v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 302; Cole v. Transit Co., 183 Mo. 81; Seaboard Air Line v. Horton, 239 U.S. 595. (9) The verdict was so excessive as to evidence passion and prejudice and should have been set aside on that ground. Varley ......
-
Ross v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
... ... that the system of the railway company was dangerous, and was ... likely to cause the ... 258 U.S. 92, 66 L.Ed. 480; Seaboard Airline Ry. v. Horton, ... 239 U.S. 595, 60 L.Ed. 458 ... ...
-
Moran v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...must be reversed. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Nixon, 271 U.S. 218; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Horton, 239 U.S. 595; Boldt, Admx. v. Railroad Co., 245 U.S. 441; Valley Ry. Co. v. Hall, 232 U.S. 94; Jacobs v. Southern Ry. Co., 241 U.S. 229......