The Atchison v. Ux
Decision Date | 11 April 1908 |
Docket Number | 15,462 |
Citation | 95 P. 1049,77 Kan. 642 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Parties | THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY v. E. C. STONE et ux |
Decided January, 1908.
Error from Ford district court; EDWARD H. MADISON, judge.
STATEMENT.
CHARLES E. STONE, an unmarried man about twenty-one years of age, was employed by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company at Dodge City as a water-changer. He had been employed at that business about fourteen days, but was familiar with its duties. Before being employed as water-changer he had been a "roustabout" in the roundhouse at that place about three years.
On July 16, 1905, engine No. 531 came in from a trip, and Stone was directed to change the water in it, and he proceeded to do so; but while engaged in that duty he was fatally scalded and died six days thereafter. The parents of the deceased commenced this action in the district court of Ford county to recover damages for the loss of their son, claiming that the railway company was negligent in failing to furnish proper appliances with which to do the work required of the deceased.
The history of the transaction from which the circumstances relied upon by the parents must be gathered is, in substance as follows: On each side of a locomotive engine, below the boiler and back of the drive-wheels, there is what is called a blow-off cock, consisting of a short metal tube with inside threads, projecting from the side of the engine. In order to let the water out of the boiler what is known as a blow-off pipe is attached to the blow-off cock above described, the valve in the latter is opened, and the hot water and remaining steam escape through the blow-off pipe into the ash-pit beneath the engine. The blow-off pipe is attached to the boiler by screwing one end of it into the blow-off cock. Blow-off pipes were kept together at the roundhouse where the deceased worked, near the hostler's office, and water-changers went there and took one when necessary for use, and returned it when the, work was finished. On the day in question, after Stone had been at his engine, he was seen running away screaming for help. The blow-off cock on his engine was open, the steam and water escaping, and his clothes were saturated with scalding water. A blow-off pipe was found on the ground, several feet from the engine--about ten feet, as stated by one witness, and by another about four feet west and directly under the blow-off cock. The threads of the blow-off pipe, which screw into and fasten it to the blow-off cock and the boiler, were worn, bent and defective. The blow-off pipes are furnished by the company, and the part which screws into the blow-off cock is usually kept in stock where it can be obtained by the employees as needed; and whenever one is needed it is the duty of the employee to apply for it. The defective condition of the blow-off pipe was apparent to any one upon examination. The threads were so worn that the grooves were not very plain. On the trial the jury returned special findings of fact which read:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goure v. Storey
... ... 1117; ... Connors v. Morton, 160 Mass. 333, 35 N.E. 860; ... Feely v. Cordage Co., 161 Mass. 426, 37 N.E. 368; ... Salem etc. Stone Co. v. Hobbs, 11 Ind.App. 27, 38 ... N.E. 538; Lindvall v. Wood, 44 F. 855; Bohn v ... Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 106 Mo. 429, 17 S.W. 580; ... Atchison etc. Ry. Co. v. Schroeder, 47 Kan. 315, 27 ... P. 965; Olson v. McMullen, 34 Minn. 94, 24 N.W. 318.) ... A ... servant is bound to take notice of the ordinary operation of ... familiar laws of gravitation and to govern himself ... accordingly. If he fails to do so, the risk is his ... ...
- Gale v. Helmbacher Forge & Rolling Mill Company
-
Schoof v. Byrd
...Fletcher v. City of Ellsworth, 53 Kan. 751, 37 P. 115; Manhattan State Bank v. Haid, 97 Kan. 297, 155 P. 57; Atchison, T. & S. F. Railway Co. v. Stone, 77 Kan. 642, 95 P. 1949; and Ivey v. Union Pac. Railroad Co., 99 Kan. 613, 162 P. 288.' (pp. 71, 72, 397 P.2d p. Further in the opinion the......
- The Riverside Iron-Works Company v. Green