Southern Ry Co v. Youngblood, 788

• Citation: 76 L.Ed. 1124,52 S.Ct. 518,286 U.S. 313
• Decision Date: 16 May 1932
• Docket Number: No. 788,788
• Parties: SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al. v. YOUNGBLOOD
• Court: United States Supreme Court

286 U.S. 313

52 S.Ct. 518

76 L.Ed. 1124

SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al.

v YOUNGBLOOD.

No. 788.

Submitted April 28, 1932.

Decided May 16, 1932.

Messrs. H. O'B. Cooper and S. R. Prince, both of Washington, D. C., and Frank G. Tompkins, of Columbia, S. C., and Sidney S. Alderman, of Washington, D. C., for petitioners.

Mr. Wm. C. Wolfe, of Orangeburg, S. C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent brought this action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59) to recover for the death of her intestate, a conductor in petitioners' employ, who was killed in a head-on collision while riding on the engine of an extra train. Petitioners operate a single track railroad between Charleston and Columbia, S. C., through Branchville, Orangeburg, St. Matthews, and Ft. Motte. Trains running from Columbia to Charleston are designated east bound, and those from Charleston to Columbia west bound. On the morning of the accident the engine of a west-bound freight train became disabled at Ft. Motte, a station nineteen miles west of Orangeburg. A yard engine kept at Branchville, eighteen miles east of Orangeburg, was ordered to go to its relief. This locomotive, running light, was designated as Extra 483 West, and had a crew consisting of respondent's intestate as conductor, an engineer, and a fireman. A freight train known as Extra 723 East was moving eastwardly from Columbia to Charleston, and it was necessary for the two to meet and pass somewhere on the line. The train dispatcher at Charleston sent a telegraphic order to Branchville, the place of departure of Extra 483, and to Orangeburg, the selected passing point, as follows:

'Extra 723 East get this order and meet Extra 483 West at Orangeburg. Engine 483 run extra Branchville to Andrews.'

Such an order is known as a form 31, which has to be signed for by the conductor when delivered to him. The order was transmitted and received by the operators at Branchville and Orangeburg as a 'three-copy' order and the operator at Branchville accordingly made three copies, one for his file and two which he delivered to respondent's intestate, who signed for the same and delivered one to the engineer. They read it in the presence of the fireman before leaving Branchville. There was nothing on the face of the order to indicate that No. 483 would be given additional copies of it, or would receive any other order, at Orangeburg, the designated passing point. The Charleston dispatcher intended that this order as transmitted to Orangeburg, and addressed at that point to 'Extra 723 East and operator,' should be what is known as a 'five-copy' order-that is, that the operator at Orangeburg should make five copies, one for his file and two to be delivered to the conductor of each of the trains which were to pass at that point. Through some oversight the Orangeburg operator received the message as a three-copy order, one of which would be retained for his file and the other two given to the conductor of Extra 723 East. Thus there were no copies for delivery, as intended, to respondent's intestate, the conductor of Extra 483 West, as there would have been had the order been received and understood at Orangeburg as a five-copy one.

Under the rules of the company the eastbound train, 723, was the superior, and it was the duty of 483 to take the siding at Orangeburg and permit the other to pass on the main track. At that point the semaphore signal was located in front of the operator's office about seventy-five yards east of the east switch of the pass track, so that the west-bound 483 approaching Orangeburg would necessarily have to pass this semaphore to reach the entrance of the pass track, which is about three-fourths of a mile long. As 483 was approaching the semaphore, the Charleston dispatcher called the...