Union Pac Ry Co v. Snyder
Decision Date | 16 April 1894 |
Docket Number | No. 165,165 |
Citation | 152 U.S. 684,14 S.Ct. 756,38 L.Ed. 597 |
Parties | UNION PAC. RY. CO. v. SNYDER |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action brought by William Daniels against the Union Pacific Railway Company, in the district court for the third judicial district of the territory of Utah, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained because of defendant's negligence. During the pendency of the writ of error in this court, Daniels died, and his administrator (Wilson I. Snyder) was substituted.
The complaint alleged that plaintiff was an employ e of the defendant company as brakeman on a freight train; that the company by its negligence and carelessness allowed a wheel of one of its freight cars to become defective through a large open crack in it, which rendered the car unsafe; that the crack was an old one, and could have been easily discovered by a proper inspection of the wheels; that it was the duty of the defendant to inspect the wheels of all cars used by it and running on its road, at stations at short intervals along the line of the road; that an inspecting station was established at Green River, Wyo., at which point the defect would have been discovered had the company's inspection service at that point been suitable and sufficient; that the company negligently and wrongfully employed incompetent agents in that service; that they did not employ sufficient in number; that those employed negligently inspected; that the defect by which the accident and ensuing injuries were caused was not discovered, by reason of the company's negligence; and that plaintiff, without fault or negligence on his part, was injured by the breaking of the defective wheel and the train being thereby thrown from the track.
The answer denied the essential averments of the complaint. Plaintiff recovered a verdict, and defendant moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and judgment rendered, from which an appeal was prosecuted to the supreme court of Utah territory, where it was affirmed. The opinion is reported in 6 Utah, 357, 23 Pac. 762. To review that judgment this writ of error was sued out.
The errors assigned and relied on at the bar were: That the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for a nonsuit made at the colse of plaintiff's testimony. That the court erred in giving each of the following instructions:
'(8) In this case, if you find that the plaintiff was injured in consequence of the wreck of the train caused by a crack and break in one of the wheels of the car on a train operated by the plaintiff, if you find that by the exercise of proper care and caution in inspecting the wheels the crack was of such a nature that it might have been discovered by the agents or servants of the defendant employed for that purpose, then such neglect to discover the crack was negligence on the part of the defendant, and for which it may be held liable in this action.
'(9) If you find that there was a want of care and diligence on the part of the persons engaged in inspecting the wheels of the cars of defendant, and that the accident was caused thereby, it is not a defense for the defendant to show that it used proper diligence and care alone and only in the selecting of such agents, but the defendant is responsible for the acts of his employees in repairing and inspecting machinery to the same extent as if he were himself present doing the act.'
And that the court erred in refusing to give each of the following instructions requested by the defendant:
'You are further instructed that as between employer and servant, as in this case, negligence on the part of the former is not proven nor to be inferred from the existence of a defect which caused the injury.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Smith
-
Wood v. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co.
... ... and Eng. Rd. Cases ... Even ... books of account of the cashier of a bank are not evidence as ... to strangers. Union Bank v. Call, 5 Fla. 409. This ... class of evidence falls within the wellrecognized maxim res ... inter alios acta, the effect of which is, that ... ...
-
Canadian Northern Ry. Co. v. Senske
... ... class of men do under these circumstances, and then test ... the conduct involved by that standard.' ... And in ... Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Daniels, 152 U.S. 684, 690, ... 14 Sup.Ct. 756, 758 (38 L.Ed. 597), the Supreme Court gave ... its sanction to the rule that the ... ...
-
Mahnich v. Southern Co
...755; Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368, 386—388, 13 S.Ct. 914, 921, 922, 37 L.Ed. 772; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Daniels, 152 U.S. 684, 688, 689, 14 S.Ct. 756, 757, 758, 38 L.Ed. 597. It would be an anomaly if the fellow servant rule, discredited by the Jones Act as a defense in suits ......