Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Swearingen

Decision Date19 December 1904
Docket NumberNo. 48,48
Citation25 S.Ct. 164,196 U.S. 51,49 L.Ed. 382
PartiesTEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. W. W. SWEARINGEN
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. John F. Dillon, D. D. Duncan, and T. J. Freeman for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 51-53 intentionally omitted] Mr. Leigh Clark for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

This suit was commenced in a state court by W. W. Swearingen, the defendant in error, and, on the application of the defendant, the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, was removed to the circuit court of the United States as one arising under the laws of the United States, because the railway company was chartered under an act of Congress.

The action was to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant company, in whose service at the time of the injury the plaintiff was employed as a switchman. The negligence alleged on the part of the company was the existence, in close proximity to a switch track, of a scale box, by striking against which the plaintiff was injured whilst doing duty as a switchman. In addition to a general denial the railway company specially pleaded that the scale box in question was at a safe distance from the track on which the plaintiff was hurt when working, and, moreover, that the plaintiff had assumed the risk, if any, arising from the situation of the scale box, and had, in any event, been guilty of contributory negligence. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and an affirmance of such judgment by the court of appeals. 59 C. C. A. 31, 122 Fed. 193.

The assignments of error are based, first, on a ruling of the trial court in rejecting evidence; second, on the refusal to direct a verdict; and, third, on an exception taken to the charge given to the jury. To pass upon them requires an appreciation of the proof, and therefore, before coming to consider the assignments, we summarize the testimony.

The accident occurred after dark on the evening of February 7, 1902, in the switch yards at El Paso. It was shown that in that yard there were several tracks. One track, No. 1, ran over the bed of the scales in question. On the right of this scale there was what was called a scale box, which rose to about the height of 6 feet, and was about 5 feet wide and 18 inches deep. On the other side of this structure there was a track described as track No. 2, and beyond this, to the right, were two other tracks, known respectively as track No. 3 and track No. 4. The space between a ladder on the side of a freight car when moving on track No. 2 and the scale box in question was shown by the evidence to be only 19 1/2 inches.

The plaintiff testified concerning the accident as follows:

'I was hurt on the evening of the 7th of February, 1902, while working as a switchman after dark, at about 6 o'clock and 45 minutes.

'I was a day switchman, but we worked until after dark.

'My duties as a switchman was to assist in the moving, placing, and switchimg of cars, coupling and uncoupling them, and making up trains, and generally to obey the order of Yardmaster Moore, under whom we were working, and my duties also required me to ride on the cars while they were being moved.

'On this night we were making up a transfer to take to the Southern Pacific Railway, and the cars we had to get were on No. 2 track. My station was with the engine, called 'following the engine.' I worked up near the engine.

'The engine was at the west end of the yards, west of track No. 2, with me with it, and it backed down east into No. 2 track, with me riding on the footboard at the east end of the engine, to get these cars, and we passed the scale box, although I did not see it, and reaching the cars I coupled the engine to them, and not getting a signal from the yardmaster, who was still farther east of me, as was also the other switchman, Williams, I walked east down the string of cars about two car lengths, and getting the signal I passed the same to the engineer, and the engine and cars started up again going west so as to go out on another track, and as the cars started I got up on a box car to ride down past the switch at the west end of track No. 2, so as to throw the switch and let the train on another track.

'There is a ladder on the side of a box car, and a step called a stirrup under the ladder under the bottom of the car, and I was holding on to the ladder with my hands [illustrating by holding his hands above his head, as if climbing a ladder], and my lantern was hanging on my right arm, and I was looking back east for a signal from the yardmaster, as it is my duty to do, I do not know whether he wanted to give one or not, but it is my duty to be on the lookout, although I do not have to look in his direction all the time, when my right shoulder struck the scale box, and I fell down between the scale box and the cars, and I was dragged and badly injured. We had probably eight or ten cars at the time, and I was riding properly and hanging out a little from the car, which is proper, and I was on the north side of the car, which is also proper, so as to signal the engineer.'

The employee who built the scales testified as follows:

'It is my business to know how much a car passing on a side track will clear the scale box, and these tracks at this place are standard gauge apart, and the scale box is standard, and as I had to put the scale box there to facilitate business and for convenience, I had no more room because the lever of the scale is a certain length to get the fulcrum. The tracks are standard, and are not further apart because there is no more room to put them farther apart.

* * * * *

'The distance that I put this scale box from track No. 2 is standard, and is considered a safe and proper distance in putting in scales where the tracks are standard gauge apart.

* * * * * 'I am bound to put my scales in according to the length of the lever, and if tracks are already there and are standard distance apart I have a uniform and standard distance from the tracks.

'We have side tracks at most places on each side of the scales. The tracks in this yard are standard gauge apart, and where ground is scarce we have to economize in space; but where ground is plenty the tracks can be further apart.'

The evidence for the company also showed that the scales in question had been erected a number of years prior to the happening of the accident and after tracks Nos. 1 and 2 were built. The superintendent of terminals of the defendant company testified that 'south of track No. 4 there is a space left for four or five more tracks.' The same witness also stated that the customary position of a switchman while riding on a car and ladder 'is to swing out from the car with his body,' and that 'a well-developed man cannot safely pass by the scale box on track No. 2, while riding on a side of a car on the ladder, if he hangs out from the car.'

There was evidence that at other yards than the one in question the distances from the side of a standard box car to adjoining scale boxes varied from 16 inches to 168 inches.

Testimony was introduced tending to show that the plaintiff, before he was hurt, knew of the proximity of the scale box to track No. 2. Concerning his employment and knowledge of the location of the scales, plaintiff testified that he had made one trip as extra brakeman in the service of the railway company in January, 1900; that in December, 1901, as brakeman, he made about one trip between El Paso and Toyah; that he had worked in the El Paso yards as extra switchman two nights and three days in January, 1902, and went to work there regularly as switchman on February 1, 1902. He denied any recollection of ever having worked on track No. 2 during his employment in January, 1902, and, referring to his employment in the early days of February, 1902, plaintiff says:

'During the seven days I worked for defendant we never used this No. 2 track at the west end, or near the scales, and I never saw a car on track No. 2, opposite the scales, and never had my attention called to the distance between the track and scale box. I never measured or approximated the distance to it. Nothing ever occurred to attract my attention to it.

* * * * *

'I knew we had to pass the scale box at the time I was hurt, so as to get to the switch beyond, but I was not thinking about it, and I did not see it when we passed it going in after these cars.

'The switch engine had a headlight lighted at both ends, and I was on the footboard at the rear of the engine, which put me in front while we were backing into track No. 2 after the cars, but the headlights were not very clean or bright.

'There was nothing to hide the scale box from my view; it was perfectly open and apparent.'

Plaintiff further testified:

'I knew the location of the scale before I was hurt. I knew it was between tracks Nos. 1 and 2, but I did not know anything with reference to its proximity to track No. 2, and did not know it was dangerously close to track No. 2.

'At the time I was hurt, I had no knowledge of the distance between the scale box and No. 2 track.

'I set cars on the scale on track No. 1 to be weighed, but I would be on the north side of the cars on track No. 1, and as the scale box is on the south side I could not see it. I had nothing to do with the scale box and had no business around it.

'I first learned the exact distance between the scale box and the nearest rail of track No. 2 a few days ago, when I went down and measured it at your (referring to plaintiff's attorney) recommendation.

'I was never warned about the danger of getting knocked off of cars by this scale box, and at the time I was hurt I was attending to my work, and thinking about my duties, and looking for a signal from the yardmaster, and was not thinking about the box. I did not see it immediately prior to the time I...

To continue reading

Request your trial
113 cases
  • Maloney v. Winston Bros. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 9, 1910
    ......MALONEY, Respondent, v. WINSTON BROS. COMPANY, Appellant Supreme Court of Idaho May 9, 1910 . . ...v. Ledbetter, 34 Kan. 326, 8 P. 411; Patton v. Texas & P. R. Co., 179 U.S. 658, 21. S.Ct. 275, 45 L.Ed. 361; ...622, 47 L.Ed. 905; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Swearingen, 196 U.S. 51, 25 S.Ct. 164, 49 L.Ed. 382;. Choctaw etc. ......
  • Cooper v. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 36318.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 12, 1941
    ...1, withdrawing these questions from the jury, because there was substantial evidence of both defenses. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Swearingen, 196 U.S. 51, 25 Sup. Ct. 164; Davis v. Crane, 12 Fed. (2d) 355; Westover v. Wabash Ry. Co., 6 S.W. (2d) 843; McDaniel v. C., R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 338 Mo. ......
  • Jenkins v. Wabash Ry. Co., 31307.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 17, 1934
    ...said that the true test is "whether the defect is known or plainly observable by the employee." In Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Swearingen, 196 U.S. 51, 63, Mr. Justice WHITE, announcing the opinion of the court said: "It was for the jury to determine, from a consideration of all the facts an......
  • Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Parker, 6 Div. 471.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 27, 1931
    ...... Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. . . ... 590, 596, 55 L.Ed. 596, 600, 31 S.Ct. 561; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Harvey, 228 U.S. 319, 321, 57 L.Ed. 852,. ...v. Wright, 202 Ala. 255, 80. So. 93; Southern Railway Co. v. Peters, 194 Ala. 94,. 98, 69 So. 611), and this ...R. Co. v. De Atley, supra;. Southern Pacific R. Co. v. Berkshire, 254 U.S. 415,. 41 S.Ct. 162, 65 ... Texas. & P. R. Co. v. Swearingen, 196 U.S. 51, 49 L.Ed. 382, 25. S.Ct. 164; Fitzgerald v. ......
  • 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