Southern Railway Company v. Lloyd, No. 296

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDay
Citation36 S.Ct. 210,60 L.Ed. 402,239 U.S. 496
Decision Date10 January 1916
Docket NumberNo. 296
PartiesSOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. W. L. LLOYD

239 U.S. 496
36 S.Ct. 210
60 L.Ed. 402
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

W. L. LLOYD.

No. 296.
Argued November 29, 1915.
Decided January 10, 1916.

Messrs. John M. Wilson, L. E. Jeffries, and H. O'B. Cooper for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Aubrey L. Brooks for defendant in error.

Page 497

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

W. L. Lloyd, herein called the plaintiff, brought his action in the superior court of Guilford county, North Carolina, against the defendant, the Southern Railway Company, joined with its lessor, the North Carolina Railroad Company. The action was brought under the Federal employers' liability act of 1908, 35 Stat. at L. 65, chap. 149, as amended April 5th, 1910, 36 Stat. at L. 291, chap. 143, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8662.

The North Carolina Railroad Company is a corporation of the state of North Carolina, owning a railroad line extending from Goldsboro, North Carolina, to Charlotte, in the same state. The Southern Railway Company is organized under the laws of the state of Virginia, and is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, transporting freight and passengers from the city of Washington, District of Columbia, through Greensboro, and over the tracks of the North Carolina Railroad Company through Spencer, Salisbury, and Charlotte.

The petition charges that the Southern Railway Company was, at the time of the injuries complained of, operating as lessee of the North Carolina Railroad Company the roads and side tracks at Spencer; that on January 12th, 1911, plaintiff was employed as an engineer by the defendant, Southern Railway Company, upon its freight trains running over said line of road from Spencer, North Carolina, to Monroe, Virginia, and was engaged in interstate traffic; that upon said date he was directed as engineer to take charge of a certain engine at Spencer, to ascertain whether the same was in serviceable condition, as it had just come from the repair shops; that while he was operating the engine on one of the side tracks of the North Carolina Railroad Company's main line at Spencer, and was oiling and inspecting the same, in stooping over the engine to ascertain if the ash pan and other equipments were in proper condition, a lever about 2

Page 498

feet long, located at the rear of the driving wheel and the lower side of the engine, used for the purpose of operating the damper to the ash pan, tripped and violently struck the plaintiff in the forehead, causing serious harm and injury; that the defective condition was known to the Southern Railway Company, and unknown to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff, at the time of the injury, was employed by the Southern Railway Company for the purpose of transporting interstate commerce running to and from Spencer, North Carolina, along the main line of the Southern Railway Company, part of which said line included the portion of said North Carolina Railroad Company's line leased by the Southern Railway Company from Greensboro, North Carolina, to Spencer, North Carolina; that the engine upon which the plaintiff was hurt was, and had been, exclusively used by the Southern Railway Company in the transportation of interstate commerce over the line of said road between Spencer and Monroe, Virginia, and that the plaintiff, at the time of his injury, was in charge of said engine. Negligence of the Southern Railway Company is charged in furnishing the plaintiff with an unsafe and dangerous engine, knowing the same to be such, and thereby rendering the plaintiff's employment hazardous and dangerous, and unnecessarily exposing him to peril.

The Southern Railway Company in due season filed its petition for removal of the case to the district court of the United States for the western district of North Carolina, because of its diversity of citizenship with the plaintiff, and alleging that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
79 practice notes
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...238 U.S. 507, 59 L.Ed. 1433; Great Northern Railway Co. v. Otos, 239 U.S. 349, 60 L.Ed. 322; Southern R. R. Co. v. Lloyd, [138 Miss. 625] 239 U.S. 496, 60 L.Ed. 402; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. R. Co. V. Wright, 239 U.S. 548, 60 L.Ed. 431; Erie R. R. Co. v. Collins, 253 U.S. 84, 64 L.......
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., No. 27609.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 5, 1929
    ...of risk, such defense is not available to it. Adams v. Railroad (Mo.), 229 S.W. 795; Halt v. Railroad 279 S.W. 152; Ry. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U.S. 496; Railway v. Mims, 242 U.S. 532. (b) Under the facts of this record the deceased did not assume the risk arising from the non-customary, unknown ......
  • Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Sec. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 27, 1935
    ...L.Ed. 962;Oakley v. Goodnow, 118 U.S. 43, 6 S.Ct. 944, 30 L.Ed. 61;Kimball v. Evans, 93 U.S. 320, 23 L.Ed. 920;Southern R. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U.S. 496, 36 S.Ct. 210, 60 L.Ed. 402;Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Cockrell, 232 U.S. 146, 34 S.Ct. 278, 58 L.Ed. 544;Great Northern R. Co. v. Alexander......
  • Cato v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co, No. 13240.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1931
    ...U. S. 50, 36 S. Ct. 4, 60 L. Ed. 139; Seaboard A. L. v. Koennecke, 239 U. S. 352, 36 S. Ct. 126, 60 L. Ed. 324; Southern R. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U. S. 496, 36 S. Ct. 210, 60 L. Ed. 402; Phila. & R. R. Co. v. Hancock, 253 U. S. 284, 40 S. Ct. 512, 04 L. Ed. 907. I think it is clear, therefore, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
79 cases
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...238 U.S. 507, 59 L.Ed. 1433; Great Northern Railway Co. v. Otos, 239 U.S. 349, 60 L.Ed. 322; Southern R. R. Co. v. Lloyd, [138 Miss. 625] 239 U.S. 496, 60 L.Ed. 402; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. R. Co. V. Wright, 239 U.S. 548, 60 L.Ed. 431; Erie R. R. Co. v. Collins, 253 U.S. 84, 64 L.......
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., No. 27609.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 5, 1929
    ...of risk, such defense is not available to it. Adams v. Railroad (Mo.), 229 S.W. 795; Halt v. Railroad 279 S.W. 152; Ry. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U.S. 496; Railway v. Mims, 242 U.S. 532. (b) Under the facts of this record the deceased did not assume the risk arising from the non-customary, unknown ......
  • Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Sec. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 27, 1935
    ...L.Ed. 962;Oakley v. Goodnow, 118 U.S. 43, 6 S.Ct. 944, 30 L.Ed. 61;Kimball v. Evans, 93 U.S. 320, 23 L.Ed. 920;Southern R. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U.S. 496, 36 S.Ct. 210, 60 L.Ed. 402;Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Cockrell, 232 U.S. 146, 34 S.Ct. 278, 58 L.Ed. 544;Great Northern R. Co. v. Alexander......
  • Cato v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co, No. 13240.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1931
    ...U. S. 50, 36 S. Ct. 4, 60 L. Ed. 139; Seaboard A. L. v. Koennecke, 239 U. S. 352, 36 S. Ct. 126, 60 L. Ed. 324; Southern R. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U. S. 496, 36 S. Ct. 210, 60 L. Ed. 402; Phila. & R. R. Co. v. Hancock, 253 U. S. 284, 40 S. Ct. 512, 04 L. Ed. 907. I think it is clear, therefore, ......
  • 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