Woodworth v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 October 1883
• Citation: 18 F. 282
• Parties: WOODWORTH v. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

18 F. 282

WOODWORTH v. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.

October 10, 1883

An employee cannot recover for an injury resulting from one of the usual risks or hazards connected with the business into which he has entered, and which the law will consider he assumed when undertaking the duties of the position.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for an injury caused to him while in the employ of the defendant in coupling freight cars, on two grounds: First, that the draw-heads of the two cars that he was required to couple were of different makes and uneven as to height, which was unknown to this plaintiff, and which he was unable to see owing to the fact that the railroad iron with which one of said cars was loaded projected over the draw-bar so as to conceal the fact that it was of a different height from the other car; and, secondly, on the ground that after the plaintiff had given the proper signal to the engineer to move the cars together, the defendant's yard-master carelessly, and without warning this plaintiff gave another sign to the engineer, by reason of which the cars were violently pushed together, and, owing to these two acts of carelessness on the part of defendant, the plaintiff was injured in attempting so to couple the cars. The defendant claims that the yard-master gave no such order and, while admitting the fact that the draw-heads were of different heights, claims that this is usual and unavoidable and that the cars should have been easily coupled by the plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary care.

C. K. Davis, for plaintiff.

R. B. Galusha, Bigelow, Flandrau & Squires, and J. Kling, for defendant.

SHIRAS J., (charging jury.)

There is a question, preliminary in its nature, as affecting the results of this case, upon which the court has been requested to instruct you, and which is fairly presented by the issue made in the pleadings, and that is in regard to the citizenship of the plaintiff. Under the law this court of the United States has jurisdiction only between citizens of different states, or between an alien and a citizen. If it should appear in the progress of the trial of this case that the plaintiff and defendant were at the time the action was brought citizens of the same state, then this court has no jurisdiction to try this case; and whatever verdict the jury might find and whatever judgment the court might pronounce would be void, for the reason that under the constitution of the United States the court would have no jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.

Therefore, to enable a party to maintain an action, it must appear, and it must be true, that the parties are citizens of different states, or one party must be an alien. In this particular case it is averred that Woodworth, the plaintiff, is a citizen of the state of Maine, and the defendant, the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company, is a citizen of the state of Minnesota. Corporations are deemed, within the meaning of the law, to be citizens of the state wherein they are created, and there is no question in this case but that the defendant is a citizen of the state of Minnesota.

If it be true that when this action was brought the plaintiff was a citizen of the state of Minnesota, then this action cannot be maintained in this court. It would not defeat his remedy, but simply this court would not have jurisdiction, and he would have to bring this action in the state court. The question has been raised whether this plaintiff was not really a citizen of the state of Minnesota at the time that this action was brought. If you find from the evidence that he was a citizen of any state other than the state of Minnesota, then the action can be maintained, and the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the controversy. Citizenship, so far as the state is concerned, is ordinarily determined by residence. In other words, residence is evidence of citizenship, but that must be taken with a qualification. A party may be a citizen, for instance, of the state of Minnesota. We have a right, any of us that are citizens of this state, to go to another state, take up our residence there, do business there, and remain their quite a length of time; still, if we go there with the intention of returning to the state of Minnesota, however long we may be gone,-- weeks, months, or years,-- we are still citizens of the state of Minnesota. A person may go round the world and travel, and reside in different places for some time, and still be a citizen of the state of Minnesota, provided he had a bona fide intention of coming back again. So a man may be a citizen of the state of Maine, and go to different places from time to time, wherever he can obtain work, and yet continue to be a citizen of the state of Maine.

The question really is, what intention the man had when he left his own state for the purpose of procuring work. When he leaves, is it with the intention of taking up a permanent residence in some other place, and abandoning his place of residence in the state he leaves, or is he still intending eventually to return there? To illustrate: those who are in the employ of the United States at Washington as department clerks go there for several years; they may be even commissioned for a given length of time, or for an indefinite time, still they continue ordinarily to remain citizens of the state from which they started, and they are supposed generally, when they leave their situations, to return to the state which they left.

The evidence of the plaintiff is before you, and that is all the evidence before you, with regard to his citizenship; it is for you to determine whether, under the testimony, he was a citizen of the state of Maine when this action was commenced, and you will give such weight to his testimony with regard to that fact as you think it deserves.

You may also take into consideration in the determination of this question the fact of the plaintiff voting and his having a farm in the state of Maine. If it appears that a man does not vote here, but continues to vote in the state from which he came, has a farm there, and states he leaves it not with the intention of remaining away, all these are matters of evidence which tend to show that he remains a citizen of that state, and would justify you in finding that he is a citizen of the state from which he came. But, as a matter of law, if you find the fact to be that when this action was commenced this plaintiff was a citizen of the state of Minnesota, then this action cannot be maintained in this court, and it will be your duty to find upon that fact. If you find for the defendant upon this issue you should state in your verdict that you find for the defendant upon the question of the citizenship of the plaintiff, so that there may be no question in the future as to his right to bring an action in another court.

Passing this question,-- which, as I said before, is preliminary, and does not affect the merits of the case,-- if you find that the plaintiff was a citizen of the state of Maine a year ago, when this action was commenced, you will then pass to the other issues in the case, and upon them I will proceed to give you instructions as to the law that is applicable to them.

In this case the plaintiff, Woodworth, seeks to recover from the defendant damages for an injury which he alleges he suffered while in the employ of the company in the position of a brakeman or switchman in the yards of the defendant corporation. There is no conflict upon these questions, and it is admitted on both sides that the plaintiff was in the employ of the railroad company, and while there in the ordinary line of his duty he undertook to make a coupling between two cars, and while doing so he received this injury. There is no dispute upon this fact; the question in issue is as to the liability, and upon whom the responsibility for this accident was. Now, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to show that there was an accident, and, as the result of that, an injury was inflicted upon him, because these railroad companies are not insurers of the life and limb of their employees. The duty and obligation which the law exacts from railroad companies towards its employes is not as high as that towards its passengers; they being common carriers, the law imposes a very high degree of care in the carriage of passengers, and makes them almost insurers of the safety of their passengers. But in regard to employes a different rule of care is applicable from that which is held towards passengers.

In the case of employes there is exacted from the railway company that the company, through its agents, shall exercise ordinary care, and that is defined to be that amount of care that an ordinarily prudent man would exercise under the same circumstances. Of course, the amount of care varies with the circumstances that surround the object and the party. Therefore you must apply this rule with regard to the circumstances that surround the parties when called upon to act. Now, the law requires of these railroad companies that they should use proper and suitable machinery and apparatus, and that the cars that their employes are required to work upon should be kept in good order. That is a duty which the railroad company owes to its employes. Still accidents will happen; something may get out of order; and if the employe knows of this, and yet deals with the machinery so out of order, he deals with it knowingly and understandingly, and is not misled. Still a railroad company should keep its machinery in good order, so as not to cause risk to the employe. But the plaintiff cannot recover by simply showing that there was an accident and an injury. He must go further, and show...