Wright's Adm'r v. Southern Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 11 December 1902
• Citation: 42 S.E. 913,101 Va. 36
• Parties: WRIGHT'S ADM'R. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

42 S.E. 913

101 Va. 36

WRIGHT'S ADM'R.

v.SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Dec. 11, 1902.

INJURY TO RAILROAD BMPLOYfi—RULES—ENFORCEMENT— NEGLIGENCE.

1. It is the duty of a railroad company to adopt, promulgate, and enforce reasonable rules to promote the safety of its employes.

¶ 1. See Master and Servant, vol. 34, Cent. Dig. §§ 283, 284.

2. Though a railroad company adopted certain rules as to the use of flags in the repair yards to protect employes working under the cars, where the evidence showed that the rules were uniformly and continuously disregarded, with the knowledge of those in charge of the repair shop, it warranted a finding imputing knowledge of the condition of the affairs in this respect to the railroad company, or a want of ordinary care on its part if it remained in ignorance of such disregard of its rules.

Error to circuit court, Brunswick county.

Action by the administrator of J. W. Wright against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Everett Perkins, E. P. Buford, and C. V. Meredith for plaintiff in error.

A P. Thom, for defendant in error

KEITH, P. This is a writ of error to a Judgment of the circuit court of Brunswick county in an action of trespass brought tc recover damages for the death of J. W. Wright, who was employed as a car repairer in the shops of the Southern Railway Company. At the trial the defendant demurred to the plaintiffs evidence, the Jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $5,000, upon which the court entered Judgment upon the demurrer for the defendant, and the case is before us upon a writ of error.

The defendant worked as car repaiter in the car sheds of the defendant in error, into which ran a number of tracks upon which cars needing repair were placed It is in proof that from 700 to 800 cars, to say nothing of other machinery, were annually repaired in the shops, necessitating the employment of a large number of workmen. J. W. Wright was at work upon track No. 3, aiding in making repairs to the drawhead of a car. In order to perform the duty assigned him he was in the middle of the track, in a crouching position, in front of the draw-head, when a shifting engine which was being coupled to a car struck and set in motion a car between the one in the repair of which Wright was engaged and that to which the coupling was being made, and drove it down the track, striking Wright and crushing him in such a manner that he shortly thereafter died.

It is charged that the railway company was negligent in failing to adopt, promulgate, and enforce proper rules and regulations for the guidance and control of its operatives engaged in the hazardous duties incident to employment in repair shops.

That it is the duty of a railroad company to exercise ordinary care to furnish reasonably safe appliances and instrumentalities for the protection of its employes, and to adopt, promulgate, and enforce reasonable rules to promote their safety, there can be no question. If authority for this proposition be needed, it will be found In Shear. & R. Neg. (5th Ed.) § 202:

"A master who employs servants in a dangerous and complicated business is personally bound to prescribe rules sufficient for its orderly and safe management, and to keep his servants informed of these rules, so far as may be needful for their guidance. Thus a railroad company is bound to regulate, by published rules, the time and manner of running its trains, so as to avoid collisions, and to enable all its servants to know when a train may be expected, and thus to avoid danger. And a jury may find that it ought to have rules to protect men working underneath cars from the starting of such cars without due warning. The master is also bound to use ordinary care and diligence to enforce the rules which he has made, and disregard of such rules, with his acquiescence or neglect to enforce them, is tantamount to a suspension of the rules A jury has no general right to find that a rule should have been adopted, without sufficient...