Terre Haute & I.R. Co. v. Brown

• Decision Date: 16 September 1886
• Citation: 8 N.E. 218,107 Ind. 336
• Parties: Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Brown.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

107 Ind. 336

8 N.E. 218

Terre Haute & I. R. Co.

v.Brown.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

September 16, 1886.

Appeal from Clinton circuit court.

J. G. Williams, for appellant. Claybaugh & Sexson, for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

The evidence in this case developed the following facts: On the night of July 2, 1881, a brakeman employed upon one of the appellant's freight trains, in attempting to step from the engine, slipped, and one of his feet, coming under the wheels, was crushed. The conductor in charge of the train found the station agent and a Dr. J. S. McMurray, with whose assistance he removed the injured brakeman to a hotel, where he left him in charge of the agent and doctor. There is some conflict in the evidence at this point; but, as against the appellant, it may now be assumed that Dr. McMurray said to the conductor, after making a cursory examination of the wounded foot, that he would need assistance in dressing it, and that the conductor replied: “I have not time to attend to this matter at all. You secure what assistance is necessary to do this man good work, and do it, and the railroad company will pay you and your assistants for it, whatever is necessary, whatever it is worth.” After the conductor departed, Dr. McMurray sent for Dr. Brown, who, without any other employment, assisted in performing a surgical operation on the brakeman's foot. They were occupied about three hours, and were assisted by a medical student, who administered chloroform, while the surgeons amputated several of the toes, and otherwise properly dressed the injured member. The brakeman was on the same morning taken to his home at Logansport, and received no further attention from either of the doctors who operated upon him. After some months, Dr. McMurray presented a bill to the railroad company in which he claimed $50 for his services, $25 for the services of Dr. Brown, and $5 for the use of the room at the hotel in which the operation was performed. Subsequently Dr. McMurray brought suit against the appellant, and recovered a judgment for $100. Upon appeal to this court the judgment was affirmed. Terre Haute, etc., Co. v. McMurray, 98 Ind. 358. After the judgment in favor of Dr. McMurray was affirmed, Dr. Brown brought this suit, and upon the facts, the substance of which we have stated, had a judgment for $100 against appellant. The question is, can the judgment be maintained upon the facts stated? That it cannot, is, in the view we take of the case, too clear for debate.

If it be conceded that such an overwhelming emergency might arise as would create a necessity for immediate action in order to save life or prevent great bodily suffering, and that under such circumstances a state of affairs might exist in the presence of which one employe would have the implied power to bind the employer, in his absence, for the necessary medical and surgical aid bestowed on another employe who sustained an injury, it by no means follows that the appellee was entitled to recover upon the facts in this case. If the emergency was such that we must assume that an imperious necessity existed, under which the conductor, from considerations of humanity, had authority to employ Dr. McMurray at the expense of the company, we cannot indulge the further presumption that it was necessary that he should have the power to authorize Dr. McMurray to employ other surgeons at the company's expense. Whatever authority the conductor had in that connectionarose out of an implied agency, under which, owing to the peculiar circumstances under which he was placed, he might bind his principal by employing...