St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 08 February 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 163.)
• Citation: 173 S.W. 834
• Parties: ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. v. ANDERSON.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

173 S.W. 834

ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. v. ANDERSON.

(No. 163.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 8, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; W. J. Driver, Judge.

Action by L. O. Anderson against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This was an action by L. O. Anderson against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company under the Employers' Liability Act of April 26, 1908 (Fed. Stat. Ann. 1909 Supp. p. 584), to recover damages for injuries received by him while in the employ of the railway company as a switchman. The facts are as follows:

The plaintiff, Anderson, was at the time he received his injuries a switchman in the employ of the defendant railway company, and was injured on the night of the 18th of August, 1912, at Illmo, Mo., while attempting to couple two cars equipped with automatic couplers. The pin lifter is an iron rod with a shank at each end. One shank rested upon the coupler, and the other upon an adjacent corner of the car. To effect a coupling the trainman raises the shank near the end of the car to a horizontal position, thereby placing the opposite shank in a vertical position. To the opposite shank is attached a chain, the other end of which is connected with the coupling pin. It is this pin which, in descending upon the impact of two cars, effects the coupling. Standard automatic couplers, when in good working order, are so adjusted that the brakeman may lift the long shank to a horizontal position, where it remains locked by the operation of a clutch, until the coupling is effected by the impact of the cars. The coupler in question had become so defective that the clutch designed to hold it in position failed to accomplish its purpose. In such event it becomes necessary for the person who makes the coupling to hold the longer shank in a horizontal position until the coupling is made, in order that the pin may be in the proper place.

At the time Anderson was injured, he testified, the automatic coupler was in such a defective condition that it was necessary for him to hold the shank until the coupling was effected. He said that when the two cars came together the drawbars had too much slack, and the pin lifter of the coupler was too long, and that his finger was caught between the pin lifter and the end of the sill of the car. In short, there was testimony from which the jury might have found that the drawbars were defective, and that on account of the defect in the automatic coupler the impact of the cars caught appellee's hand between the long shank of the pin lifter and the end of the car, and thus occasioned his injury. Other testimony was adduced by him, tending to show the character and extent of his injury; but, inasmuch as no complaint is made that the verdict is excessive, it is not necessary to abstract this testimony.

The evidence on the part of the defendant tended to show that the automatic coupler was not in a defective condition. Other testimony will be stated or referred to in the opinion.

The court of its own motion gave the following instructions:

"No. 1. You are instructed that it is the duty of the master, in this instance the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, to furnish the servant, in this instance the plaintiff in the case, with safe appliances with which the servant may perform his duties, and to keep such appliances safe, and the failure on the part of the master to discharge this duty makes him liable in law for any injuries received by the servant in consequence of his use of such appliances so furnished.

"No. 2. And in this case, if you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff would not have been injured, but for the plaintiff's use of an unsafe coupler, drawheads, or parts thereof, then your verdict will be for the plaintiff; otherwise, you will find for the defendant.

"No. 3. You are instructed that, unless you find from the evidence in this case that the use of such unsafe coupler, drawheads, or parts thereof, was the proximate cause of the injury complained of, then your verdict will be for the defendant."

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.

S. H. West, of St. Louis, Mo., and J. C. Hawthorne, of Jonesboro, for appellant. Spence & Dudley, of Piggott, and R. P. Taylor, of Paragould, for appellee.

HART, J. (after stating the facts as above).

It is insisted by counsel for the defendant that the testimony is not sufficient to warrant a finding by the jury that the plaintiff was engaged in interstate commerce at the time he was injured. The testimony on that point most favorable to the plaintiff is the following:

Illmo, Mo., is a station on defendant's line of road where five switch crews work at night. The plaintiff at the time he was...