Southern Pac Co v. Seley
Decision Date | 05 March 1894 |
Docket Number | No. 119,119 |
Parties | SOUTHERN PAC. CO. v. SELEY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Statement by Mr. Justice SHIRAS:
This was an action in the district court for the first judicial district of the territory of Utah against the Southern Pacific Company, a railroad corporation, brought by Isabella Seley, administratrix of William B. Seley, deceased, to recover damages for the death of her husband, caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant company. The Southern Pacific Company was incorporated under the laws of the state of Kentucky, and is engaged in operating the Central Pacific Railroad, running between the city of Ogden, in Utah, and a point in California.
Seley was, for seven years prior to his death, a conductor upon freight trains on the lines of the Southern Pacific Company and of its predecessor, the Central Pacific Railroad Company, and before that time had been a brakeman in the same employ. In the course of his business he was engaged in the depot yard at Humboldt Wells at least once a week, and usually oftener.
The accident in which Seley met his death took place on July 7, 1887, at this depot yard, while he was making up his train preparatory to running out with it.
The chief brakeman, named Hardy, had met with some difficulty in coupling a car, and had twice failed to make the coupling. The other brakeman had also failed in an attempt to couple the car. Seley undertook to effect the coupling. His first effort was a failure, the link slipping. At this time Hardy testifies that he warned Seley to take his foot out of the frog,—that he would be caught.
Seley made a second attempt, and, while endeavoring to make the coupling, again put his foot into the frog, from which he was unable to extricate it when the cars came together. He was thrown down by the brake beam, the wheel passed over him, and he was instantly killed.
At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant moved for a nonsuit. This was refused, and an exception was allowed. At the close of the entire evidence, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant. This was refused, as were likewise certain instructions prayed for. A verdict for $7,500 was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, on which judgment was entered, a motion for a new trial having been overruled. This judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory, (23 Pac. 751,) to whose judgment a writ of error was brought to this court.
Maxwell Evarts, for plaintiff in error S. Sheelabarger, J. M. Wilson, and A. A. Hoehling, Jr., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 147-150 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice SHIRAS, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The theory upon which the plaintiff proceeded in the court below was that Seley lost his life by reason of the negligence of the defendant, a railroad company, in using in its switches what is called an 'unblocked frog.'
A frog, in railroad parlance, is a section of a rail, or of several rails combined, at a point where two railways cross, or at the point of a switch from a line to a siding or to another line, and its function is to enable a car or train to be turned from one track to another. In a blocked frog the point of space between the rails, at the point where the car is switched from one track to another, is filled with wood or other material, so that the foot will not be held. There is a form of cast-iron frog in which the space between the rails at the apex of the frog is filled with cast iron; but the evidence clearly was that the defendant company used the unblocked frog, although at some places the cast-iron frog was used. The weight of the evidence, as we read it in the bill of exceptions, plainly was that on the other great railroad systems of the west the unblocked frog was generally used. There was evidence tending to show that the unblocked frog is the better form; that the blocked frog is liable to be broken, get out of place, and throw the train from the track.
In this disputable state of the facts the defendants asked the court to charge the jury as follows:
'The jury are instructed that if they find from the evidence that the railroad companies used both the blocked and the unblocked frog, and that it is questionable which is the safest or most suitable for the business of the roads, then the use of the unblocked frog is not negligence, and the jury are instructed not to impute the same as negligence to the defendant, and they should find for the defendant.'
This prayer should have been given by the court.
In the case of Schroeder v. Car Co., the supreme court of Michigan, per Cooley, J., said:
Walsh v. Whiteley, 21 Q. B. Div. 371, was a case where the plaintiff was employed in defendant's mill, and it was his duty to put a band upon a vertical wheel while in motion. The disk of the wheel was not solid throughout, but had a number of holes in it. While putting the band on the wheel, the plaintiff's thumb slipped into one of the holes, and was cut off. It appeared on the trial that these wheels were made sometimes with, and sometimes without, holes. The plaintiff's witnesses stated generally that the wheels with holes were dangerous. The plaintiff never made any complaint to his employers. He recovered a verdict, but the judgment was, on appeal, reversed; the court saying:
Sweeney v. Envelope Co., 101 N. Y. 520, 5 N. E. 358, was a case where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Merrill v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
...R. Co. v. Billingslea, 116 F. 335; Terry et al. v. Schmidt, 116 F. 627; Bunker Hill & S. Mining Co. v. Kettleson, 121 F. 529; Southern P. Co. v. Seley, 152 U.S. 145; Kohn McNulta, 147 U.S. 238; Tuttle v. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co., 122 U.S. 189; Sullivan v. India Mfg. Co., 133 Mass. 396; Gilber......
-
St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller
... ... him. This instruction was undoubtedly inspired by the opinion ... of the majority of this court in Southern Pac. Co. v ... Yeargin, 109 F. 436, 442, 48 C.C.A. 497, 503, to which ... the writer never assented, and the following authorities are ... now ... Supreme Court and other courts hold that such servants assume ... the risk of the injuries which they may entail. Southern ... Pac. Co. v. Seley, 152 U.S. 145, 155, 14 Sup.Ct. 530, 38 ... L.Ed. 391; Appel v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 111 N.Y ... 559, 19 N.E. 93; Gillin v. Railroad Co., 93 ... ...
-
FW Woolworth Co. v. Davis, 187.
...instruct a verdict accordingly. Southern Pacific Co. v. Pool, 160 U. S. 438, 16 S. Ct. 338, 40 L. Ed. 485; Southern Pacific Co. v. Seley, 152 U. S. 145, 14 S. Ct. 530, 38 L. Ed. 391; Miller v. Canadian Northern Ry. Co. (8 C. C. A.) 281 F. 664, opinion by Judge Walter H. In the United States......
-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Parker, 6 Div. 471.
... ... 676, 123 So. 57; ... Dwight Manufacturing Co. v. Holmes, 198 Ala. 590, ... 593, 73 So. 933, and authorities; Alabama Great Southern ... Ry. Co. v. Skotzy, 196 Ala. 25, 71 So. 335; Russell ... v. Bush, 196 Ala. 309, 311, 71 So. 397, and authorities; ... King v. Woodward Iron ... 36 L.Ed. 758; Boldt, Adm'x, v. Pennsylvania R ... Co., 245 U.S. 441, 38 S.Ct. 139, 62 L.Ed. 385, 389; ... Southern Pacific Co. v. Seley, Adm'x, 152 U.S ... 145, 14 S.Ct. 530, 38 L.Ed. 391; 4 Elliott on Railroads (3d ... Ed.) § 1862. It was the knowledge of dangerous proximity ... ...