The Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis And Chicago Railway Co. v. Roesch

• Decision Date: 09 January 1891
• Docket Number: 14,186
• Citation: 26 N.E. 171,126 Ind. 445
• Parties: The Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis and Chicago Railway Company v. Roesch
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

26 N.E. 171

126 Ind. 445

The Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis and Chicago Railway Company v. Roesch

No. 14,186

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 9, 1891

From the Decatur Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

J. B Brown, C. Ewing and J. K. Ewing, for appellant.

O. F Roberts, W. N. Hanch, J. D. Miller and F. E. Gavin, for appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This opinion, in which we all concur, was prepared by the late Judge Mitchell, and expresses the views and judgment of the court.

Roesch sued the railroad company to recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been suffered on account of the negligent failure of the company in supplying dangerous and defective machinery and appliances, about which the plaintiff was required to work.

It appears that at the time of sustaining the injury complained of the plaintiff was in the employ of the railroad company and was, with a number of other employees, engaged as a trackman, under the direction of a foreman, in raising the railroad track, at a particular point, with gravel. The gravel was conveyed to the place on flat cars, which were unloaded by the use of an implement designed for the purpose called a "plow." This was pulled over the loaded cars by means of a wire cable, or rope, one end of which was attached to the plow and the other to the engine, which, when detached from the train of loaded cars, pulled the plow, which was held to its place by means of a square piece of timber fastened to the center of the flat cars, and in this manner the gravel was unloaded. The trackmen had no particular duty to perform in connection with the process of unloading the gravel, except to be conveniently near, so as to clean off the track as the plow passed from car to car, and dispose of the gravel, when the train was moved out of the way. At the time the plaintiff was injured the gravel was being unloaded from a train while standing on a curved track, and the evidence tended to show that where cars thus situate were being unloaded the plow could not, ordinarily, be safely operated without using additional appliances to those in use at the time of the accident. The evidence tends to show that during the process of unloading, either because the cable had become defective, or on account of the additional strain put upon it, growing out of the situation of the cars, the cable broke, causing the plow to leave the car over which it was being drawn. It fell upon the plaintiff, who was standing upon the concave, or inner, side of the curve, inflicting upon him injuries of a painful, and, probably, permanent character.

The jury found that the railroad company had not furnished its employees in charge of the gravel train with sufficient and suitable appliances for unloading the gravel train at the time the work was undertaken, and that the implements and machinery used were not of sufficient strength to bear the strain put upon them at the time and place of the accident.

It is of course a conceded proposition that it is the duty of an employer to furnish suitable implements for the use of his employee in the performance of his duties, and a safe and suitable place at or in which to prosecute the work assigned him to do. An employee has the right to repose...