Taylor v. Rock Island, A. & L. R. Co

• Decision Date: 08 June 1908
• Docket Number: 16,859
• Citation: Taylor v. Rock Island, A. & L. R. Co, 46 So. 621, 121 La. 543 (La. 1908)
• Parties: TAYLOR v. ROCK ISLAND, A. & L. R. CO
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

46 So. 621

121 La. 543

TAYLOR v. ROCK ISLAND, A. & L. R. CO

No. 16,859

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 8, 1908

Appeal from Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lincoln Robert Brooks Dawkins, Judge.

Action by James Taylor against the Rock Island, Arkansas & Louisiana Railroad Company.Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

John B Holstead and Clayton, Hawthorn & Atkinson, for appellant.

John T Hicks and Barksdale & Barksdale, for appellee.

OPINION

MONROE J.

Statement of the Case.

This is a suit by a brakeman for the recovery of damages sustained by him through the alleged negligence of the defendant, by whom he was employed.The answer is a general denial, coupled with a plea of contributory negligence.The case having been tried without a jury, there was judgment for defendant, from which plaintiff has appealed.

The facts disclosed in the record are as follows: In April, 1906, plaintiff was about 21 years old, and, having worked as a brakeman on different railroads for 3 or 4 years, was familiar with the ordinary risks of the position.

On April 2d he was employed in that capacity on a freight train owned by defendant, which, running south, had occasion to stop at Winona, in order to go on a siding and do the station switching.Just before reaching the stopping point, the crew had collected on the engine; the engineer and the fireman being at their posts, the conductor and plaintiff in the cab, and another brakeman, with the flagman, on the pilot.As the train was about to stop, the conductor ordered plaintiff to cut off the engine from the car to which it was attached, and plaintiff stepped off from the right side of the engine (the west side of the train), and went between the tank of the engine and the car to execute the order.The train was equipped with air brakes, and the air was conveyed from the engine through a joint or section of a pipe or hose which extended from the rear of the tank on the right side, and passing under the couplings, was connected with the front of the car on the left side; and the first thing to be done, as a preliminary to the uncoupling of the engine from the car, was to cut off the air, for the accomplishment of which it was necessary to turn the cock which was attached to the pipe projecting from the engine and another cock which was attached to another pipe or hose on the car.

Plaintiff says that, standing with his face to the tank (which necessarily placed his left side to the coupling), he shut off the air from the engine by means of the cock attached to the engine; that he then turned, with his face to the car (which necessarily placed his left side towards the rail and away from the coupling), and, leaning over and against the coupling, shut the cock that was attached to the car; and that, while...