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

• Decision Date: 19 November 1890
• Docket Number: 14,548
• Citation: 25 N.E. 878,126 Ind. 99
• Parties: The Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis and Chicago Railway Company v. Davis
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

25 N.E. 878

126 Ind. 99

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

No. 14,548

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 19, 1890

From the Decatur Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

J. S Scobey, for appellee.

OPINION

Elliott, J.

The appellee, at the time he was employed to render the professional services which he seeks to recover the value of in this action, was a physician and surgeon, in regular practice at Morris, in this State. He was employed directly by one of the appellant's conductors, by whom he was informed that a telegram had been received from the appellant's general superintendent authorizing his employment, to give professional attention to a man who had been injured by one of the appellant's trains. The telegram of the superintendent was addressed to the conductor, and reads thus: "Stop at Morris and see if you can get Dr. Davis to go to Newpoint to attend to a man that got hurt there this p. m. If you can get him carry him to Newpoint." Under this employment the services for which compensation is sought were rendered by the appellee.

The appellant offered to prove that it had in its employment a chief physician and surgeon, whose duty it was to employ surgeons to give professional attention to persons injured by its trains, but the evidence was excluded. There was no error in excluding this evidence. It was immaterial whether the appellant had, or had not, a chief surgeon in its service charged with the duty of employing subordinate surgeons, for there is no pretence that the appellee had notice of that fact. He was not bound to look beyond the general superintendent as the source of authority warranting his employment. It is quite well settled that a general superintendent has authority to employ surgeons to give attention to persons injured by the trains of the company he represents. And it is rightly so held, for it would be unreasonable to require a surgeon to give professional assistance to a person injured by the company's trains and then deny him compensation, upon the ground that the superintendent had no authority to employ him, because that authority was lodged in a chief surgeon. Nor are we willing to sanction a rule imposing upon the surgeon whose services are requested by the superintendent, the duty of making specific inquiry as to the scope of the superintendent's authority. Such a rule would operate harshly in many cases, for, if the surgeon must stop to make inquiries before leaving his home or office, the injured man might perish. Better railroad companies should be held responsible for...