Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co. v. Hullum

• Decision Date: 17 February 1919
• Docket Number: 20483
• Citation: 119 Miss. 229,80 So. 645
• Parties: YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY R. R. CO. v. HULLUM
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

80 So. 645

119 Miss. 229

YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY R. R. CO. v. HULLUM

No. 20483

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 17, 1919

Division B

1. MASTER AND SERVANT. Injuries to servant. Assumption of risks.

It is elementary law that employees assume the obvious risks incident to their employment.

2 SAME.

Under the facts in this case which was a suit by a railroad detective against the company for injuries sustained by being shot by unknown parties, the court held, that appellee accepted an extremely hazardous employment; that the danger was obvious; that he knew, or ought to have known, that what did happen was not improbable and that he assumed the risks of his employment.

HON. E L. BRIEN, Judge.

APPEAL from the circuit court of Warren county. HON. E. L. BRIEN Judge.

Suit by Noble M. Hullum against the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and dismissed.

Hirsch, Dent & Landeau, H. D. Minor and Chas. N. Burch, for appellant.

Henry & Canizaro and Anderson, Voller & Kelly, for appellee.

OPINION

COOK, P. J.

The appellee, plaintiff in the circuit court of Warren county, secured a judgment against the appellant for the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars. Appellee was employed by the railroad company as a watchman on moving freight trains, and in the yards of the company from Baton Rouge and Kenner Junction, inclusive, for the purpose of protecting the trains from thieves and burglars. Previous to this employment, plaintiff had been a guard in a convict camp and also had been employed by defendant as a guard in the yards of defendant at Vicksburg.

It appears that plaintiff knew, or had been told, that there had been frequent train robberies, and it was his duty to protect the trains from robbers.

While engaged in this employment, and after he had been in the service for three weeks, he was fired upon by some unknown parties at Burnside, La., just as the train was stopping. He was armed with a pistol and returned the fire. It appears that the plaintiff was between two cars when the train pulled into Burnside; that he sought this position for the purpose of concealment, and for the purpose of protecting the trains from burglars.

The evidence shows, however, that the burglars were also on the lookout for detectives, saw appellee before he saw them, and opened fire.

It appears to us that any ordinarily intelligent man, accepting the employment appellee accepted, would necessarily appreciate that he was engaging in a hazardous business. He at least knew that a pistol would be needed in his job and acted accordingly.

His theory upon which a recovery was obtained seems to be that, while he appreciated the dangers ordinarily connected with the employment, these were extraordinary conditions known to his employers, but unknown to him when he accepted employment.

The record discloses that the appellee was a young man, only twenty-six years of age, and as his age was somewhat stressed, we conclude that his age alone was believed to be a factor in the case. We find ourselves unable to accept this suggestion in the absence of any...