Suttle v. Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1906
• Docket Number: 2,236.
• Citation: 144 F. 668
• Parties: SUTTLE v. CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

144 F. 668

SUTTLE v. CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO.

No. 2,236.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 16, 1906

Sam R Chew, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas S. Buzbee (E. B. Pierce, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN, HOOK, and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.

ADAMS Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff's intestate was a switchman in the employ of defendant railroad company, and was, in November 15, 1903, engaged in the performance of his duties in defendant's yards in Booneville, Ark. He was directed to uncouple a caboose from a train of freight cars preparatory to switching it upon a side track. The east end of the caboose, and the west end of the box car to which it was coupled, were equipped with coupling devices, as required by Act Cong. March 2, 1893, c. 196, Sec 4, 27 Stat. 531 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174); but at the time in question the lever on the south side of the caboose was temporarily disconnected from the coupling pin, so that it did not operate. The lever on the north side of the box car was in good working condition. These cars could ordinarily be coupled or uncoupled by operating either of the levers. When plaintiff's intestate was directed to uncouple the caboose, he was on the south side of the train which was then standing still. The east end of the caboose was furnished with the ordinary platform for passage from one side to the other. He passed over this platform, turned a switch, and returned to the south side. The train had then started and was moving at a slow rate of four to six miles per hour. There is no evidence of any unusual haste or emergency. Plaintiff's intestate, either knowing before or then ascertaining, that the lever on the south side of the caboose did not operate the coupling pin, went between the caboose and neighboring box car while the train was moving, as just stated, for the purpose of lifting the coupling pin with his fingers and thereby disconnecting the two cars. This was in the nighttime. While doing this he stumbled and fell and was run over by the train.

The evidence discloses that there were other safe and practicable methods open to plaintiff for uncoupling the cars. On receiving his orders, he being on the south side, crossed the platform to the north side, turned the switch, and returned to the south side. He might, as he had just done, have stepped across the platform and made use of the lever on the box car. He might have sat on the platform and safely reached over and drawn the pin with his hands. He might have given a signal and had the train stopped for the purpose of safely disconnecting the cars. Moreover, he might, as he should have done, declined to expose himself to danger by unnecessarily going between the two cars in the nighttime, while they were in motion.

The foregoing facts are practically undisputed, and are substantially the same as have been twice expressly passed upon by ...