Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Howell

• Decision Date: 13 May 1912
• Docket Number: No. 947,947
• Citation: Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Howell, 224 U.S. 577, 32 S.Ct. 601, 56 L.Ed. 982 (1912)
• Parties: TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. W. A. HOWELL
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

224 U.S. 577

32 S.Ct. 601

56 L.Ed. 982

TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v W. A. HOWELL.

No. 947.

Submitted April 22, 1912.

Decided May 13, 1912.

Mr. William L. Hall for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 577-580 intentionally omitted]Mr. S. P. Jones for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Holmesdelivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action for personal injuries done to the plaintiff, the defendant in error, Howell, while in the employ of the railway company.The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment, subject to exceptions, and the judgment was affirmed without discussion by the circuit court of appeals.The material facts can be stated in a few words.The plaintiff was set to digging a hole for a post under a coal chute.While he was at work the defendant put other men to removing certain timbers and planks from the floor, 12 feet or so above him, without his knowledge, as he contends, and a piece of timber fell and struck the plaintiff on the head.The plaintiff now is suffering from tuberculosis of the spine, in consequence, as he says, of the blow.The defendant asked the court to direct a verdict, and also to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff knew that other servants were tearing up the floor above him, he took the risk; that if no harm would have resulted but for the negligence of those other servants the defendant was not liable; and that the plaintiff's present disease of the spine was too remote from the blow to be attributed to it as a result.The case was left to the jury with instructions that if the injury was due to negligence of the defendant in sending men to work above the plaintiff, as a contributing cause, the defendant was liable; but not if it was due only to the negligence of fellow servants in their way of performing their work.The question also was left to the jury whether the disease was the direct consequence of the blow.

The case was begun in the state court and was removed to the circuit court, and is brought here, solely on the ground that the plaintiff in error has a charter from the United States.But for that accident, which has no bearing upon the questions raised, the case would stop with the circuit court of appeals.Under such circumstances we go no further than to inquire whether plain error is made out.Chicago Junction R. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222, 56 L. ed. 173, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 79.We find nothing that requires us to reverse the judgment.It was open to the jury to find that the usual duty to take reasonable care to furnish a safe place to the...