Slater v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1911
• Docket Number: 3,671.
• Parties: SLATER v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

209 F. 480

SLATER v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.

No. 3,671.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

September 30, 1911

This suit was brought by the plaintiff, as administrator, to recover damages for the death of his intestate. The declaration alleged that the plaintiff's intestate, while riding, with a friend, on one of the defendant's freight trains, and rounding a curve, was, by reason of the defective coupling of the engine and cars and the inefficiency unskillfulness and negligence of the railway employes in the manner of running the train, thrown from the train, falling between the cars, and run over; that one of his legs was entirely cut off, and the other badly cut, his injuries being serious but not fatal; that, after the plaintiff's intestate had been thus injured and rendered utterly helpless and was bleeding profusely from both legs, the defendant's agents and servants, over his protest, placed him in an unheated work or box car, on a siding, where he was allowed to remain, over his protest, without medical attention or other care, for about four hours, and without any effort to procure a physician or other medical aid, in consequence of which exposure and neglect he bled to death before reaching the hospital to which he was subsequently taken; and that his death was due to the wanton negligence of the defendnat's agents in placing him in a position where he could not receive proper medical attention, until it was too late, and leaving him unattended and permitting him to die from hemorrhage, where if he had been permitted to call medical aid, he could, and would, have recovered from the injuries.

The defendant demurred to the declaration on the grounds, among others; that it appeared that the plaintiff's intestate received the injuries from which he died while riding as a trespasser on the defendant's train, and without fault or neglect on its part; and that it owed him no duty to secure him proper medical attention after being so injured, and could not be held liable for the failure of its employes to aid him in this respect.

Perkins Baxter and J. H. Zarecor, both of Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Robin J. Cooper, of Nashville, Tenn., for defendant.

SANFORD District Judge.

Plaintiff in the declaration, does not seek a recovery for the injuries to his intestate resulting in the cutting off of his leg, but to recover damages for his death due to the alleged wanton neglect of the defendant's agents and employes to procure medical attention for the plaintiff's intestate after they had taken him in charge after the accident and removed him, over his protest, about a mile from the scene of the accident and placed him in a work or box car on the siding.

The declaration does not show that plaintiff's intestate was riding on the defendant's freight train either as a passenger or as a licensee; and since it is entirely consistent with the averments of the declaration that the plaintiff's intestate was riding on the freight train as a trespasser (this appearing to be the theory upon which plaintiff's brief is based), the averment that he was injured through defective appliances and the inefficiency and unskillfulness of the employes operating the train, is clearly insufficient to show liability for the original injury to such trespasser, in the absence of any averment of wanton and intentional wrong or injury to the plaintiff's intestate after becoming aware of the danger in which he stood. Kansas City, F.S. & M.R. Co. v. Cook (C.C.A 6) 66 F. 115, 122, 13 C.C.A. 364, 28 L.R.A. 181; Felton v. Aubrey (C.C.A., 6) 74 F. 350, 356, 20 C.C.A. 436; Louisville & N.R.R. Co. v. Womack (C.C.A., 6) 173 F. 752, 754, 97 C.C.A. 559; Railroad v. Meacham, 91 Tenn. 428, 431, 19 S.W. 232; Hoskins v. Railroad (Ky.) 30 S.W. 643; Brown's Adm'r v. Railroad, 97 Ky. 228, 30 S.W. 639; Gherkins v. Railway Co. (Ky.) 30 S.W. 651.

The plaintiff's case, if maintainable, must then rest solely on the averment in the declaration of the wanton negligence of the defendant's agents and employes in failing to care for the plaintiff's intestate after he had been injured and taken charge of by them. Upon the question whether a defendant who has injured another, without fault, under such circumstances that there is no legal liability for the original injury, owes such legal duty to the injured person when in a helpless condition, based upon the obligations of humanity, to prevent an aggravation of the injury from lack of...