The Evansville and Richmond Railroad Company v. Barnes

• Decision Date: 28 March 1894
• Docket Number: 16,655
• Citation: 36 N.E. 1092,137 Ind. 306
• Parties: The Evansville and Richmond Railroad Company v. Barnes
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

36 N.E. 1092

137 Ind. 306

The Evansville and Richmond Railroad Company v. Barnes

No. 16,655

Supreme Court of Indiana

March 28, 1894

From the Monroe Circuit Court.

The judgment is reversed, with instructions to proceed in accordance with this opinion.

M. F Dunn, for appellant.

C. C Matson, J. Giles, J. R. East and W. C. East, for appellee.

OPINION

Dailey, J.

The matter in controversy has been substantially passed upon by this court in the case of this appellant against Tyre S Henderson, decided on April 4th, 1893.

The Henderson suit grew out of the same wreck, and the facts upon which the court reversed the judgment of the court below are almost identical with those shown in this case. That is, we have the same conductor, the same engineer, the same cross-ties and derailment. Instead of an inexperienced minor we have an experienced railroad man and an adult. In lieu of a mere employe, ignorant of the road and but a short time in its employ, as in the former case, we have, in the person of the plaintiff, the superintendent of bridges and an assistant superintendent of construction, who had been with the road during the entire progress of its construction, frequently over it, and thoroughly familiar with its condition--one who inspected the track, including the portion complained of, immediately before the accident, and who made no protest, but permitted the train to be run at a rapid rate of speed when it was within his power, owing to his position, to have prevented it.

We have before us a plaintiff, superior in authority to all the construction trainmen, who, from his experience, by a mere casual observation, had he looked, could have seen that the ties were not properly loaded, and who made no objection to the manner of loading, and assumed the risk.

The appellee's own testimony condemns his right to a recovery. As a witness, he says, in substance: "I knew it was a new road in process of construction, only half tied. I knew the condition of the track east of the starting point." * * * "I knew it was a new road, and the manner of constructing roads, that it was half tied. I knew the manner of loading cross-ties at the point of the accident."

Q. "Did you make an inspection of the road-bed and cross-ties at the point of the accident?" A. "Yes; that became a part of the bridge; I stated that." "I inspected the entire track. When you inspect the entire track, you do inspect it all." * * * "We carefully inspected to see that it was all alike at that particular point, and safe to run over." * * * "We made a careful inspection of bridges and approaches at the point of the accident. I was over the road twice that morning." * * * "The half tieing system is the ordinary method of constructing a new railroad." * * * "I did not notice how the cross-ties were loaded; I never looked."

Felix Polk, who was engaged with the appellant that day, says: "We inspected the bridges and the track that morning."

From the testimony of the appellee as to the condition of the track observed by him and Felix Polk, immediately before the accident, it is evident he knew it was a new track, half tied, and not ballasted.

In another part of his statement, he says: "It was half tied. It was so all along the line." * * * "Track was quite rough; there was water on it at the time. It was sunk down in the mud."

The witness also says he did not look to see whether the ties were braced or not, and that he could have told at a glance.

"It is an elementary principle of law governing the relation of master and servant, that when a servant enters upon an employment which is, from its nature, necessarily hazardous, the servant assumes the usual risks and perils of the service, and this is especially true as to all those risks which require only the exercise of ordinary observation to make them apparent. In such cases there is an implied contract on the part of the servant to take all the risks fairly incident to the service, and to waive all right of action against the master for injuries resulting from such hazards. This waiver includes on the part of the servant all such risks as from the nature of the business as usually and ordinarily conducted, he must have known when he embarked in the master's service, and also those risks which the exercise of his opportunity for inspection, while giving diligent attention to such service, would have disclosed to him." Evansville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Henderson, 134 Ind. 636, 33 N.E. 1021.

Where the danger is equally open to the observation of both the master and the servant, they are upon an equality, and the master is not liable, as a general rule, for the resulting injuries. Evansville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Henderson, supra; Griffin v. Ohio, etc., R. W. Co., 124 Ind. 326, 24 N.E. 888 (328).

The accident, to some extent, must be attributed to the speed with which the train was run. This is the appellee's contention, also; but the necessity of the speed at which the train was propelled at the time of the injury, is not apparent from the evidence adduced on the trial. On the contrary, it is shown that the engineer had orders to run slowly, which he violated.

In the case of Evansville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Henderson, supra, on p. 641, the court said: "It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the appellee's injuries are attributable, in some degree at least, to the unnecessary and reckless rate of speed at which the engineer was running the construction train over a half-finished road. Had the train been run at a speed consistent with the dangers incident to the known conditions surrounding the parties in charge of, and upon, the train, there is no reason to believe that the accident would have occurred, in which the appellee was so seriously injured. But the appellee and the engineer operating the engine were fellow-servants, and for this reason the appellant is not liable to the appellee for an injury received on account of the negligence of such engineer."

In Columbus, etc., R. W. Co. v. Arnold, Admr., 31 Ind. 174, it is said: "It is now settled in this State, that the employer is not liable for an injury to one employe, occasioned by the negligence of another engaged in the same general undertaking. * * 'Neither is it necessary, in order to bring the case within the general rule of examination, that the servants, the one that suffers and the one that causes the injury, should be at the time engaged in the same operation or particular work. It is enough that they are in the employment of the same master, engaged in the same common enterprise, both employed to perform duties and services tending to accomplish the same general purposes, as in maintaining and operating a...