St Louis Ry Co v. Schumacher

Decision Date05 March 1894
Docket NumberNo. 239,239
Citation38 L.Ed. 361,152 U.S. 77,14 S.Ct. 479
PartiesST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. v. SCHUMACHER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Statement by Mr. Justice BROWN:

This was an action by Schumacher to recover for personal injuries received by him while in the employ of the defendant railway company as a laborer upon a gravel train, which was engaged in 'surfacing' or ballasting defendant's tracks in the Indian Territory.

The complaint alleged that the plaintiff boarded the train at Tuscahoma, to aid in unloading the gravel when the car should reach its destination; that when the train reached Talihina, it was stopped on the main track to take on several cars loaded with gravel, which were then on the side track; that after these cars were switched to the main track from the side track, they were cut loose from the engine and run with great force and violence down grade, until they struck the train on which plaintiff was riding; that the brakeman was unable to diminish the speed or check the cars, by reason of a defective brake, of the condition of which the defendant had notice, or might with proper diligence have had notice; and that, by reason of the negligence of the defendant in permitting such defective brake to be used, plaintiff was, by the striking of the cars against the train on which he was riding, violently thrown from the car upon the track, the wheels running over his left foot and inflicting painful and serious injuries. In a supplemental complaint, plaintiff further charged the defendant with negligence in failing to make and enforce suitable regulations as to the manner of switching and making up trains, regulating the speed thereof, and providing a sufficient number of brakemen to check and control the cars.

The answer put in issue all these allegations, and pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Upon the trial the case was submitted to a jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $8,000, upon which judgment was entered, and defendant sued out this writ of error.

Geo. R. Peck, E. D. Kenna, A. T. Britton, and A. B. Browne, for plaintiff.

A. H. Garland, for defendant.

Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

We do not find it necessary to consider in detail the specification of errors assigned to the charge of the court in this case, as we are of opinion that, upon the conceded facts, there was such contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff as required the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.

The testimony showed that plaintiff was employed as a common laborer by defendant; that it was his duty to assist in loading cars with gravel, and then ride down on the train to that portion of the track where the gravel was to be used, and there to assist in unloading and placing the gravel between the ties. At the time of his injury, plaintiff was sitting on the end of a loaded flat car next to the caboose, with his feet hanging over the side of the car. The train had stopped at Talihina, a station between the gravel pit and its destination, to take up 10 additional carloads of gravel, which were standing upon a side track; the original train consisting of 4 cars and a caboose. On arriving at Talihina, the engine left the cars and caboose on the main track, went in on the siding, coupled on 13 cars that were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Mooney v. Terminal Railroad Association, 38122.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 Enero 1944
    ...U.S. 236, 48 S. Ct. 80, 72 L. Ed. 259; Toledo, St. L. & W.R. Co. v. Allen, 276 U.S. 166, 72 L. Ed. 513; St. L.-S.F.R. Co. v. Schumacher, 152 U.S. 77, 38 L. Ed. 361; Chunn v. City & Suburban Ry., 207 U.S. 302. 52 L.Ed. 219; Smith v. Gould (dissenting opinion), 110 W. Va. 579, 159 S.E. 53, 92......
  • Graham v. Thompson, 39898.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 27 Mayo 1948
    ...U.S. 236, 48 S. Ct. 80, 72 L. Ed. 259; Toledo, St. L. & W.R. Co. v. Allen, 276 U.S. 166, 72 L. Ed. 513; St. L.-S.F.R. Co. v. Schumacher, 152 U.S. 77, 38 L. Ed. 361; Chunn v. City & Suburban Ry., 207 U.S. 302, 52 L. Ed. 219. (17) The last clear chance doctrine is appreciably a narrower field......
  • Shidloski v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 19 Octubre 1933
    ... 64 S.W.2d 259 333 Mo. 1134 Stanley Shidloski, Administrator of the Estate of Alexander Serwatka, v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company, a Corporation, Appellant No. 31159 Supreme Court of Missouri October 19, 1933 . .           Appeal. from Circuit ... (3) The defendant owed no special effort to avoid injury to. the deceased unless his peril was known. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Schumacher, 152 U.S. 77; Inland. Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U.S. 551. (4) The. alleged custom or practice of sending a man ahead to warn car. ......
  • Graham v. Thompson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 27 Mayo 1948
    ... 212 S.W.2d 770 357 Mo. 1133 Zona Graham, Administratrix of Estate of Thomas Graham, v. Frank A. Thompson, Trustee of and for the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, a Corporation, and the Kansas City Terminal Railway Company, a Corporation, Appellants No. 39898 Supreme Court of ...236, 48 S.Ct. 80, 72 L.Ed. 259;. Toledo, St. L. & W.R. Co. v. Allen, 276 U.S. 166, 72. L.Ed. 513; St. L.-S.F.R. Co. v. Schumacher, 152 U.S. 77, 38 L.Ed. 361; Chunn v. City & Suburban Ry., 207. U.S. 302, 52 L.Ed. 219. (17) The last clear chance doctrine. is appreciably a ......
  • 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