Southern Ry. Co v. Moore

• Decision Date: 11 June 1908
• Citation: 61 S.E. 747,108 Va. 388
• Parties: SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. MOORE.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

108 Va. 388

61 S.E. 747

SOUTHERN RY. CO.

v.MOORE.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 11, 1908.

1. Master and Servant—Appliances—Duty of Master—Negligence.

The master is not a guarantor of the safety of his appliances, his duty being merely to use ordinary care to provide and maintain reasonably safe appliances, and the failure of either the master or one of his servants to whom the duty is delegated, to exercise such degree of care, is actionable negligence.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, §§ 171-174.]

2. Negligence—Evidence.

The mere happening of an accident is of itself no evidence of negligence. There must be affirmative and preponderatory proof of negligence, showing more than the mere probability of a negligent act.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 37, Negligence, §§ 218, 271.]

3. Master and Servant — Railroads — Personal Injuries—Defective Car Coupler— Negligence—Sufficiency of Evidence.

A competent inspector employéd by defendant railroad inspected a car and automatic coupler three times within 24 hours. The third inspection showed a defect in the coupler, consisting of the absence of a pin. The inspector at once set about procuring another pin; but, before he returned, plaintiff, a brakeman, attempted, in violation of defendant's rules, to couple the car to another by hand, though he saw the defect, which was obvious, and was injured. Held, that defendant was not guilty of actionable negligence.

Error to Circuit Court, Orange County.

Action by Edward Moore against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

John W. Fishburne, for plaintiff in error.

Horsley, Kemp & Easley, for defendant in error.

HARRISON, J. This action was brought by Edward Moore to recover damages of the Southern Railway Company for its alleged negligence in causing him serious injury.

At the time the injury complained of was sustained, the plaintiff was a brakeman in the service of the defendant company, engaged in the act of coupling two freight cars on the siding at Orange. There was a demurrer to the evidence by the defendant company, which was overruled by the circuit court, and judgment entered for the plaintiff. Thereupon this writ of error was awarded.

It appears that two freight cars, equipped with Janney automatic couplers, were standing on the siding at Orange. With a Janney coupler, the locking or coupling pin is connected with a lever which projects from the side of the car. By manipulating this lever, the brakeman couples the cars without the danger of going between them. The connection between the lever and the coupling pin is effected by the use of a small pin. At the time of the accident, this small pin was missing, so that the lever could not be used in coupling the two cars. The defect was seen by the plaintiff. It Is shown by the evidence for the plaintiff to have been a defect easily seen and easily repaired. When the plaintiff approached the cars for the purpose of effecting the coupling, with full knowledge that the coupler was out of order, he, in violation of the rules of the company, which were also known to him, went between the cars and undertook to make the coupling with his hand, receiving, in doing so, the injury complained of.

The defendant company based its demurrer to the evidence upon the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant which was the proximate cause of the injury.

The burden was upon the plaintiff to prove that the injury complained of was caused by the negligence of the defendant. If this burden is not sustained with satisfactory proof, there can be no recovery.

The negligence alleged is that the defendant company knowingly and negligently used on one of its cars a defective coupler. It was shown that the coupler in question was not in good working order; the defect consisting in the absence of a small pin which connected the lever, already mentioned, with the coupling pin. The uncontradicted evidence further shows that the car in question had been inspected by a competent inspector for the defendant company on the evening before the accident, and again the next morning, and again just before the accident happened, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. On the first two of these inspections, the...