Texas Ry Co v. Archibald, 207
Decision Date | 23 May 1898 |
Docket Number | No. 207,207 |
Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. ARCHIBALD |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
John F. Dillon, W. S. Pierce, and D. D Duncan, for plaintiff in error.
James Turner, for defendant in error.
This suit, commenced in a state court, was removed to the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Texas on the ground that the defendant was incorporated under the laws of the United States. The object of the action was to recover damages for a personal injury suffered by the plaintiff while engaged as a switchman in the employ of defendant. On the trial by a jury there was a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the judgment of the trial court entered on such verdict was subsequently affirmed by the circuit court of appeals for the the Fifth circuit. 41 U. S. App. 567, 21 C. C. A. 520, and 75 Fed. 802. To that court error was prosecuted.
The errors assigned are based entirely on the theory that the trial court erred in refusing to give to the jury certain instructions asked by the defendant, and that the court of appeals also fell into error in affirming the action of the trial court. To clearly understand the contentions of the plaintiff in error, it becomes essential to outline the facts.
The Texas Pacific and the Cotton Belt Railway Companies both had tracks entering the city of Shreveport. These tracks of the two companies were connected. A short distance off the line of the Texas Pacific there was a cotton seed oil mill, which was united by a spur track with the main line of railroad as it ran through a railway yard. The Cotton Belt delivered to the Texas Pacific two oil-tank cars, in order that they might be by the latter delivered to the oil mill, where they were to be filled, and then redelivered by the Texas & Pacific to the Cotton Belt to be carried to their point of destination over its line. The tank cars were placed by the Texas Pacific near the oil mill, on the spur track leading thereto. At a subsequent time,—there being conflict in the testimony as to how long a period intervened,—one of the tank cars having been filled with oil, the mill company requested that the loaded car be moved and the empty car be left on the spur track so that it might also be filled. To accomplish this purpose, an engine, with a box car, moved down the spur track to couple to the oil cars, so as to place the loaded one on the main track preparatory to delivering it to the Cotton Belt. The plaintiff, a switchman, was ordered to uncouple the loaded from the empty tank car. These cars were both fitted with an appliance by which, if in good order, the coupling pin could be removed by a lever without the necessity of the switchman going between them. This appli- ance, however, on the cars in question, when the switchman sought to use it, was found to be out of order, and he was therefore compelled to lean in between the two cars to draw out the coupling pin for the purpose of uncoupling,—an operation shown to be usually resorted to when necessary. As he was making this movement, his feet became entangled, and he was thereby suddenly exposed to the risk of being thrown between the cars, and to the danger of being crushed to death. The entanglement of the feet of the switchman was caused by a broken brake rod, with links of chain attached to it and a hook at its end, which was hanging down under one of the cars; and which, in the movement of the car, was projected out into the space between the two cars, and caught the feet and legs of the switchman as he leaned between the cars for the purpose of doing the uncoupling. In his effort to escape being thrown between the slowly-moving cars, the right arm of the switchman was caught between the drawheads of the cars, and was so badly crushed at the elbow that amputation was rendered necessary.
There was proof tending to show that the Texas Pacific is pected the cars in use on its road, not only those belonging to it but those delivered to it from other roads; and that, where a car was found out of order, the inspector marked upon it the nature of the defect found to exist, thereby giving warning on the subject to those who might handle it. The uncontradicted proof was that there were no marks on the cars in question calling attention to any defect. There was proof tending to explain the absence of a mark or marks calling attention to the defective condition by showing that the car inspector of the Texas Pacific performed his duty at a point called the 'junction,' which was outside of the place where the tracks of the Texas Pacific and Cotton Belt were connected, and hence that, where a car was delivered by the Cotton Belt to the Texas Pacific by means of the connecting track inside of the junction, no inspection of such cars was made by the Texas Pacific. The proof tended to establish that this was only necessarily the case where the car delivered by the Cotton Belt to the Texas Pacific was by the Texas Pacific redelivered to the Cotton Belt by means of the connecting tracks between the two roads, because, when a car was so redelivered, it was not carried by the Texas Pacific over its main track to the junction where the car inspector was presumed to discharge his duties. In case of cars delivered as above stated, and which were not, therefore, inspected by the Texas Pacific, there was proof giving rise to the inference that that company, in view of the fact that the cars were not intended to go out over its line, relied on the inspection which it presumed had been made by the Cotton Belt. The tendency of the proof on the foregoing subject was not, however, entirely concordant, as there was some proof tending to show that the duties of the car inspector of the Texas Pacific extended not only to the inspection of cars at the junction, but also to the inspection of cars received within that point under conditions similar to those under which the oil-tank cars were received.
There are six assignments of error, the first of which may be at once dismissed from view, as it simply avers that the court of appeals erred in affirming the judgment of the trial court, without any specification of any particular error committed. The remaining five we will consider in their logical sequence, rather than in the order in which they are pressed in the brief of counsel. The consideration of the fourth and fifth assignments involves substantially the same legal contention. The fourth rests upon the refusal of the trial judge to give the following instruction:
'The duty to inspect cars coming from other roads applies only when the car is to be sent out on the receiving road, and does not apply when cars are switched from one road to be loaded and returned to the road from which they were received.'
The fifth upon a like refusal to give this instruction:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maloney v. Winston Bros. Co.
... ... 287; ... A. T. & S. R. Co. 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; Stearns v. Ontario Spinning ... Co., ... existed. ( Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Archibald, 170 U.S ... 665, 18 S.Ct. 777, 42 L.Ed. 1188; Choctaw & R. Co. v ... McDade, 191 U.S. 64, ... 382; ... Choctaw etc. Co. v. Holloway, 191 U.S. 334, 24 S.Ct ... 102, 48 L.Ed. 207; Chicago, Great Western R. Co. v ... McDonough, 161 F. 657; Harvey v. Texas & P. Ry ... Co., ... ...
-
Spahn v. Peoples Railway Company
... ... 252, 69 N.W. 914; ... Fry v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 95 Minn. 87, ... 103 N.W. 733; Texas &c. R. Co. v. Syfan, 43 ... S.W. 551 ... Courts ... have wisely said that, in ... Benson ... v. Wil. City Ry., 24 Del. 202, 1 Boyce 202, ... 207, 75 A. 793 ... As to ... the third reason for a new trial, we submit that the court ... R. R. Co., 18 Del ... 210, 2 Penne. 210, 215, 43 A. 629; T. & P. Ry ... Co. v. Archibald, 170 U.S. 665, 671, 672, 42 L.Ed. 1188, ... 18 S.Ct. 777; Winkler v. P. & R. Ry. Co. 4 Pa. 80, ... ...
-
Leach v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
... ... [81 P. 94] ... In the case of Texas & P. Ry. Co. v ... Archibald , 170 U.S. 665, 18 S.Ct. 777, 42 L.Ed. 1188, ... the court says: ... ...
-
Merrill v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
... ... v. U. P. R. R. Co., 25 Utah 420; Miller v. Mining ... Co., 18 Utah 358; Texas & Pacific R. R. Co. v ... Archibald, 170 U.S. 665; 1 Shearman & Redfield on ... Negligence [5 ... ...