Travis v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 22 June 1908
• Docket Number: 16,966
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: TRAVIS v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO

46 So. 909

121 La. 885

TRAVIS v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO

No. 16,966

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 22, 1908

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1908.

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; Andrew Jackson Murff, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Anna B. Travis against the Kansas City Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

See 44 So. 274, 119 La. 489.

Alexander & Wilkinson, for appellant.

Hall &amp Jack, for appellee.

LAND J. BREAUX, C. J., concurs.

OPINION

LAND J.

This is a suit by Mrs. Anna B. Travis, suing for herself and her three minor children, to recover $ 20,000 damages for the suffering and death of her husband, a switchman, alleged to have been killed through the negligence of the defendant company in not furnishing sufficient lights in its yards to enable its trainmen to perform their work in safety. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $ 8,000, and defendant has appealed.

Travis was one of the crew engaged on a starlight night in switching freight cars in defendant's yards at Shreveport, La. The switch engine was pushing backwards three cars on one of the side tracks, and Travis was standing on the footboard of the tender. The other switchman was on the ladder of the rear car, and it was his duty to look out for obstructions and give proper signals. It was Travis' duty to repeat the signals to the engineer. The train was moving at a speed of from six to eight miles an hour. Suddenly it collided with some stationary box cars on the track. The force of the impact broke or displaced the drawhead of the box car, and caused the car to climb the tender, thereby crushing Travis in the hips and loins. The leading switchman did not see the cars on the track until too late to avert a collision. He testified that, before jumping, he signaled the engineer; but the latter swore that he did not see the signal.

Plaintiff's case is reduced to the contention that the defendant railway was guilty of negligence in not having its yards lighted sufficiently to enable its employes to see at a safe distance standing cars or other obstructions on the tracks.

The defendant railway has never lighted its switchyards, at Shreveport, Kansas City, or elsewhere. The evidence shows that, among the prominent railroads of the country, some do and others do not light their yards with electricity. It is not shown that a majority of the railroads follow this practice, which, we are bound to know, is of comparatively recent date. Railroads which use appliances of a kind in common use are not guilty of negligence. The rule is that where the employer does what is commonly and generally done by persons or corporations in the same general line of business, he is not guilty of actionable negligence. ...