Wiggins v. Powell

Decision Date23 May 1941
Docket NumberNo. 9757.,9757.
Citation119 F.2d 751
PartiesWIGGINS v. POWELL et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

John S. Lavin, of Orlando, Fla., and J. W. Hunter of Tavares, Fla., for appellant.

C. P. Dickinson, of Orlando, Fla., for appellees.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

McCORD, Circuit Judge.

J. H. Wiggins, a section foreman for Receivers of the Seaboard Air Line Railway, was injured while engaged in the performance of his duties on the railroad. He brought suit against the Receivers under the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, § 1 et seq., 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. The case was tried to a jury and at the conclusion of the evidence the court, on motion, directed a verdict for the defendants on the theory that Wiggins was guilty of negligence which "was the proximate cause of the accident". From the judgment entered on the directed verdict Wiggins has appealed.

The record reveals that on the night of February 14, 1938, defendants' Train No. 680 used a packing house siding at Lake Charm, Florida. This siding led from the main line of the Oviedo Branch of the railroad. In order for Train No. 680 to use the siding it was necessary to open the switch against the main line of the Oviedo Branch. After using the siding, the train by use of a "run-around" track returned to Orlando, and the Lake Charm switch was left open against the main line.

On the following morning Wiggins and four members of his section crew were riding on a motor car along the main line of the Oviedo Branch. The car was being operated by Earl Moore, a member of the section crew. The car was drawing a brakeless trailer loaded with crossties, and was traveling from Orlando toward a point beyond Lake Charm where the crew had track repair work to do. The car was being operated at a speed of from eight to ten miles per hour when it ran into the open switch and was derailed, causing permanent injury to Wiggins.

At a point approximately eighty feet beyond the switch a road running from behind a warehouse crossed the tracks. The packing house was in operation and this road was used by vehicles moving to and from it, and both Wiggins and Moore testified that their attention was focused on the road and crossing for, "We had rigid instructions about doing any personal injuries on the road crossing, and we were to give all preference to them."

The motor car was so constructed that an iron rod down the center of the car formed a back rest with seating arrangements on each side facing out from the track. Wiggins was sitting on the right side of the car toward the front and was facing out and ahead. Moore, the operator, was sitting behind Wiggins, and the other crew members were sitting on the left side of the rail.

The switch target was a metal standard located eight feet and eight inches from the nearest rail. The target presented a circular red face to indicate an open switch, and a white parallelogram pointing upward to indicate a closed switch. As the motor car approached the switch the target presented a circular red face indicating that the switch was open, and Wiggins concedes that had he been anticipating danger from an open switch he could have seen the switch target in more than ample time to have directed Moore to stop the car, and that in all probability it would have been possible to observe the target three or four hundred feet before reaching the point where the car was derailed. Moore testified that had he been looking he could have seen the switch target easily, probably for a distance of three or four hundred feet, but that he failed to see that the switch was open until he was within four or five feet of the point of derailment.

There was no movement of trains anywhere about the switch at the time of the accident, and Wiggins testified that he was merely scanning the track for obstructions and concentrating on the blind road crossing ahead. "I wasn't expecting to find an open switch, and I never have found one open." He had been section foreman for the railroad for thirty-one years and had been foreman on that particular section for twelve years. He did not see that the rail was out of position until "ten or twelve feet" before the motor car was derailed. When he saw that the switch was open he called a warning to Moore, who, having apparently perceived the danger about the same time, applied the brakes before Wiggins could get the words out of his mouth.

The defendants introduced in evidence many rules of the railroad. It is only necessary to notice the two following rules which apply to section foremen:

"1169. They will not permit any person to run any motor car, lever car, or velocipede over their section unless such person holds written permit from the General or Division Superintendent, Division Engineer or Railroad Master."

"XII-3. The foreman or other employee to whom the car is assigned is responsible for the inspection, use, operation and care of the car. The foreman will personally operate the car, unless he has on the force a man better fitted to do so, but in no case is the foreman relieved of responsibilities for inspection, use, operation, and care."

Moore was thirty...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Beanland v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • May 17, 1973
    ...Bay Ry., 170 F.2d 719, 721 (5th Cir. 1948), rev'd on other grounds, 338 U.S. 430, 70 S.Ct. 226, 94 L.Ed. 236 (1949); Wiggins v. Powell, 119 F.2d 751, 753-754 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 649, 62 S.Ct. 94, 86 L. Ed. 520 (1941); Finnegan v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 261 Mo. 481, 169 S.W. 969, ......
  • Malone v. Gardner
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1951
    ...by the employer and employee. There is justification for the conclusion deceased was within the scope of his employment. See Wiggins v. Powell, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 751; and compare Wellinger v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 353 Mo. 670, 183 S.W.2d In continuing our consideration of the conte......
  • Knierim v. Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 22, 1970
    ...fellow employees. This testimony was sufficient to establish the "customary and practical construction" of the rule. See Wiggins v. Powell, 119 F.2d 751, 753 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 649, 62 S.Ct. 94, 86 L.Ed. 520 Finally, the Railroad contends that the trial court abused its disc......
  • Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. of Tex. v. Bruton, MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 26, 1956
    ...not being left open and unguarded as they proceed along the railroad track, has been held by the Fifth Circuit. See Wiggins v. Powell, 5 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 751, 754, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 649, 62 S.Ct. 94, 86 L.Ed. 520, where the court 'The defendant railroad was guilty of negligence......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT