Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Erickson

• Citation: 59 N.W. 347,41 Neb. 1
• Decision Date: 05 June 1894
• Docket Number: 5516
• Parties: UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. LARS E. ERICKSON
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

59 N.W. 347

41 Neb. 1

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. LARS E. ERICKSON

No. 5516

Supreme Court of Nebraska

June 5, 1894

ERROR from the district court of Dodge county. Tried below before MARSHALL, J.

AFFIRMED.

J. M Thurston, W. R. Kelly, and E. P. Smith, for plaintiff in error:

The plaintiff has entirely failed to prove any actionable negligence on the part of the defendant's employes in any respect stated in the petition, or to account for the falling or bursting of the piece of coal mentioned therein. Such being the case, it was the duty of the court to have withdrawn the case from the jury, or to have directed a verdict in favor of the defendant in accordance with the request of the defendant. (Patterson, Railway Accident Law sec. 373; Grossenbach v. Milwaukee, 65 Wis. 35; Baker v. Madison, 62 Wis. 137; Brown v. Kendall 6 Cush. [Mass.], 292; Rockwood v. Wilson, 11 Cush. [Mass.], 221; Nitro-Glycerine Case, 15 Wall. [U. S.], 524; Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. Wendt, 12 Neb. 76; Stevenson v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 18 F. 493; Morrison v. Phillips & Colby Construction Co., 44 Wis. 410; Ladd v. New Bedford R. Co., 119 Mass. 412; Steffin v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 46 Wis. 259; Wood v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 51 Wis. 196; Chappell v. Oregon, 36 Wis. 145; Payne v. Forty-second & Grand St. R. Co., 40 S.Ct. [N. Y.], 8; Smith v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 42 Wis. 526; De Vau v. Pennsylvania & N. Y. C. & R. Co., 28 N.E. [N. Y.], 532; Wheelan v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 52 N.W. [Ia.], 119; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Barnard, 32 Neb. 316; Sorenson, Adm'r, v. Menasha Paper & Pulp Co., 56 Wis. 338; Schultz v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 67 Wis. 616.)

The court erred in allowing the plaintiff, on cross-examination of the engineer, to show that, after the date of the accident, railings were put around the top of the locomotive tenders belonging to the company. (Lang v. Sanger, 76 Wis. 71; Columbia & P. S. R. Co. v. Hawthorne, 12 U. S. S.Ct. Rep., 591; McClary v. Sioux City & P. R. Co., 3 Neb. 44; Pickett v. Crook, 20 Wis. 378; Cooper v. Milwaukee & P. R. Co., 23 Wis. 668; Couch v. Watson Coal Co., 46 Iowa 17; Lee v. Detroit Bridge & Iron Works, 62 Mo. 565; 7 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 855; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Arispe, 17 S.W. [Tex.], 47; Baulec v. New York & H. R. R. Co., 59 N.Y. 356; McKee v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 50 N.W. [Ia.], 209; Loftus v. Union Ferry Co., 84 N.Y. 459; Sjogren v. Hall, 18 N.W. [Mich.], 814; Richards v. Rough, 18 N.W. [Mich.], 785; Schultz v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 67 Wis. 622; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co v. Howard, 49 F. 206; Meyer v. Midland P. R. Co., 2 Neb. 339; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kelly, 127 Ill. 627; St. Louis & S. R. Co. v. Weaver, 35 Kan. 412.)

If the plaintiff is right in his assumption that this injury arose from a defect in the construction of the tender, or in its management, obvious to himself, or which with ordinary care he might have known, then by continuing in his employment, without demurrer, he assumed such risk and hazard. (Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Londergan, 7 N.E. [Ill.], 55; Minty v. Union P. R. Co., 21 P. [Idaho], 660; Randall v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 109 U.S. 478; Herbert v. Northern P. R. Co., 13 N.W. [Dak.], 349; Northern P. R. Co. v. Herbert, 116 U.S. 642; Bunt v. Sierra Butte Gold Mining Co., 138 U.S. 483; Howland v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. R. Co., 54 Wis. 230; De Forrest v. Jewett, 88 N.Y. 264; Hughes v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 27 Minn 137; Fraker v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 32 Minn. 54; Dowell v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., 62 Iowa 629; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Donahue, 75 Ill. 106; Sweeney v. Central P. R. Co. , 57 Cal. 15; Kansas P. R. Co. v. Peavey, 8 P. [Kan.], 780; Tuttle v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 122 U.S. 189; Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid, 3 McQueen [Scotch App.], 266.)

Had the negligence been shown to exist, and to have been that of the engineer or fireman, then they were fellow-servants with the plaintiff, engaged in the same general business, and under the same employer, and for that reason no recovery can be had. (Farwell v. Boston & W. R. Co., 4 Met. [Mass.], 49; Murray v. South Carolina R. Co., 1 McMullen [S. Car.], 385*; St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. v. Triplett, 15 S.W. [Ark.], 833; Tuttle v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 122 U.S. 195; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Collins, 5 Am. Law Reg., n. s. [Ky.], 265; Coon v. Syracuse & U. R. Co., 1 Seld. [N. Y.], 492; Wilson v. Merry, 1 L. R. H. L. Sc., 326; Brodeur v. Valley Falls Co., 17 A. [R. I.], 54; Union P. R. Co. v. Fort, 17 Wall. [U. S.], 553; Waller, Adm'r, v. Southeastern R. Co., 2 Hurl. & Nor. Exch. Rep. [Eng.], 109; Randall v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 109 U.S. 478; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Andrews, 50 F. 732; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Ross, 112 U.S. 377; Pittsburg & Ft. Wayne & C. R. Co. v. Devinney, 17 O. St., 198; Kumler v. Junction R. Co., 33 O. St., 150; Mealman v. Union P. R. Co., 37 F. 189; Hough v. Texas & P. R. Co., 100 U.S. 213; Van Wickle v. Manhattan R. Co., 23 Blatch. [U. S. C. C.], 422; Rohback v. Pacific R. Co., 43 Mo. 187; Armour v. Hahn, 111 U.S. 318; Howard v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 26 F. 837; Clifford v. Old Colony R. Co., 141 Mass. 564; Keyes v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 A. [Pa.], 15; Collins v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 30 Minn. 31; Whaalen v. Mad River & L. E. R. Co., 8 O. St., 249; Gormley v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 72 Ind. 31; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Wachter, 60 Md. 395; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Rider, 62 Tex. 267; Boldt v. New York C. R. Co., 18 N.Y. 432; Blake v. Maine C. R. Co., 70 Me. 60; Coon v. Syracuse & U. R. Co., 5 N.Y. 492; Capper v. Louisville, E. & St. L. R. Co., 103 Ind. 305; Henry v. Staten Island R. Co., 81 N.Y. 373; Russell v. Hudson River R. Co., 17 N.Y. 134; Heine v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 58 Wis. 525; Cooper v. Milwaukee & P. C. R. Co., 23 Wis. 668; Toner v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 69 Wis. 188; Brown v. Central P. R. Co., 7 P. [Cal.], 447; Besel v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 70 N.Y. 171; Valtez v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 85 Ill. 500; Harvey v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 88 N.Y. 481; Holden v. Fitchburg R. Co., 129 Mass. 268; King v. Boston & W. R. Co., 9 Cush. [Mass.], 112; Van Wickle v. Manhattan R. Co., 32 F. 278; Gillshannon v. Stony Brook R. Co., 10 Cush. [Mass.], 228; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Ryan, 18 S.W. [Tex.], 219; Elliot v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 41 N.W. [Dak.], 758; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Mealer, 50 F. 725; Sullivan v. Mississippi & M. R. Co., 11 Iowa 421; Foster v. Minnesota C. R. Co., 14 Minn. 360; Capper v. Louisville, E. & St. L. R. Co., 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. [Ind.], 527; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Moranda, 93 Ill. 302; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Murphy, 53 Ill. 336; Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Morgenstern, 106 Ill. 216; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Moranda, 108 Ill. 576; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. O'Bryan, 15 Ill.App. 134; Dow v. Kansas P. R. Co., 8 Kan., 642; Kansas P. R. Co. v. Salmon, 11 Kan. 83; Little Miami R. Co. v. Stevens, 20 O., 416; Waller v. Southeastern R. Co., 2 H. & C. Exch. [Eng.], 101; McAndrews v. Burns, 39 N.J.L. 117; Nashville & D. R. Co. v. Jones, 9 Heisk. [Tenn.], 27; Louisville, C. & L. R. Co. v. Cavens, 9 Bush [Ky.], 559; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Collins, 2 Duv. [Ky.], 114; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Robinson, 4 Bush [Ky.], 507; Murray v. South Carolina R. Co., 1 McMullan [S. Car.], 385; Clarke v. Holmes, 7 H. & N. [Eng.], 937*.)

Frick & Dolezal, contra:

The court did not err in permitting the engineer to be questioned concerning a railing to prevent the coal from falling off the tender. (Cropsey v. Averill, 8 Neb. 152; Chicago, K. & N. R. Co. v. Wiebe, 25 Neb. 512; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Weaver, 35 Kan. 412; Readman v. Conway, 126 Mass. 374; West Chester & P. R. Co. v. McElwee, 67 Pa. St., 311; Kansas P. R. Co. v. Miller, 2 Col., 442; O'Leary v. City of Mankato, 21 Minn. 65; Brehm v. Great Western R. Co., 34 Barb. [N. Y.], 256; Westfall v. Erie R. Co., 5 Hun [N. Y.], 75; Harvey v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 19 Hun [N. Y.], 556; St. Joseph & D. R. Co, v. Chase, 11 Kan. 47; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Retford, 18 Kan. 245; City of Emporia v. Schmidling, 33 Kan. 485; Phelps v. City of Mankato, 23 Minn. 279; Kelly v. Southern M. R. Co., 28 Minn. 98; Sewell v. City of Cohoes, 11 Hun [N. Y.], 626.)

The defendant in error and the engineer and fireman were not fellow-servants within the rule of law in this state which would prevent a recovery against the railway company,--the master of all three. (Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Moranda, 93 Ill. 302; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kelly, 21 N.E. [Ill.], 203; Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Morgenstern, 106 Ill. 216; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Norment, 84 Va. 167; Moon v. Richmond & A. R. Co., 78 Va. 745; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. McKenzie, 81 Va, 71; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Weaver, 57 Am. Rep. [Kan.], 176; Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. v. Lundstrom, 16 Neb. 254; Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Smith, 22 Neb. 775; East T., V. & G. R. Co. v. De Armond, 86 Tenn. 73; Krogg v. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., 77 Ga. 202; Cooper v. Mullins, 30 Ga. 146; Hough v. Texas & P. R. Co., 100 U.S. 213; Priestley v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. [Eng.], 1; King v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 14 F. 277; Garrahy v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 25 F. 258; Northern P. R. Co. v. Herbert, 116 U.S. 642; O'Donnell v. Allegheny V. R. Co., 59 Pa. St., 239; Ryan v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 60 Ill. 171; Lewis v. St. Louis & I. M. R. Co., 59 Mo. 495; Darrigan v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 52 Conn. 285; Vautrain v. St Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. , 8 Mo. App., 538; Hall v. Missouri P. R. Co., 74 Mo. 298; Hardy v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 36 F. 657; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Brooks, 83 Ky. 129; Louisville, C. & L. R. Co. v. Cavens, 9 Bush [Ky.], 559.)

OPINION

A statement of the facts appears in the opinion.

IRVINE, C.

Erickson was...