MASTER AND SERVANT-Continued.
Right to rely on orders and advice of master. Stenvog v. Minne-
sota Transfer Co. (Minn.), 39.
Servant's conduct as affected by fact that situation called for
immediate action. Erie R. Co. v. Schomer (C. C. A.), 303.
Station agent, in loitering for two or three minutes on the track
without looking to see the movements of the trains thereon
upon the arrival of a passenger train, was negligent, though a
rule of the railroad that trains approaching a station where an-
other train is receiving and discharging passengers shall not
pass such train on either side until it has proceeded beyond the
station. Hallock v. New York, etc., Ry. Co. (N. Y.), 332.
Switchman's mistake in throwing wrong switch was the remote
cause of his injury, and hence such mistake did not deprive him
of the right to have his act in crossing car considered on ques-
tion of contributory negligence, with reference to the emer-
gency then existing for immediate action. Erie R. Co. v. Scho-
mer (C. C. A.), 303.
Switchman's negligence in attempting to cross front end of coal
car, on which there was no platform or end sill, instead of
adopting some other method, was for jury. Erie R. Co. v.
Schomer (C. C. A.), 303.
Brakeman, injured while preparing to make a coupling, through
a stop signal given the engineer being neglected, may show
that railroad had piled timber along the track, and consequent
obstruction of view between him and the engineer, only as the
reason for his communicating the stop signal to the engineer
through the fireman, instead of directly to him, on the occasion
in question. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Pearcy (Ky.), 326.
Railroad, as an employer, has a right, when backing an engine
to make a coupling, to do so with car attached to engine. Louis-
ville & N. R. Co. v. Pearcy (Ky.), 326.
Master is only bound to use reasonable care to furnish safe appli-
ances. Siegel v. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), 311.
Masters are liable for the consequences, not of danger, but of
negligence, and they are not insurers. Southern Ry. Co. v.
Lewis (Va.), 743.
Railroads should not be required to compensate injuries to their
employees for which in law they are not responsible. Ryland
7. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (Fla.), 56.
Though station agent when struck by a switching freight train
was in a place of danger through his own negligence, it would
not excuse the negligence of the train crew in running him
down after his dangerous position was apparent. Hallock v.
New York, etc., Ry. Co. (N. Y.), 332.
Evidence.
Evidence as to subsequent condition of track, in action for death
of engineer. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. Williams (Tex.), 770.
Res gestæ, statement by division superintendent to discharged
conductor, contained in service letter, was not admissible as.
Meyers . San Pedro, etc., R. Co. (Utah), 21.
Rule that trains will approach yard limits under full control and
be prepared to stop within the limits of vision, etc., was admis-
sible in action for death of conductor killed in rear end collision
between sections of train. Meyers v. San Pedro, etc., R. Co.
(Utah), 21.
MASTER AND SERVANT-Continued.
Testimony of conductor of section of train which collided with
other section, as to when his train was due at a station, was ad-
missible as against objection that time-table was best evidence.
Meyers v. San Pedro, etc., R. Co. (Utah), 21.
Inspection of Appliances.
Hidden defects in cars cause injury to its employees, liability of
railroad where. Ryland v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (Fla.), 56.
Railroad was not negligent in failing to inspect torpedoes be-
fore fastening them to the rails; the mere possibility that one
torpedo out of thousands might be defective and fail to ex-
plode, and thereby indirectly cause a collision in which a brake-
man would be injured, not being sufficient to show negligence in
that respect. Siegel v. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co. (Mich.), 311.
Joint Liability.
Manufacturing company and railroad company were engaged in
a joint operation on the occasion in question, and there was
imposed on them the joint duty to use due care towards those
employed in the work, and, as an employee was injured though
the negligent performance of that duty, the companies were
guilty of a joint tort upon which arose a joint and several lia-
bility to the injured employee. Fliege v. Kansas City W. Ry.
Co. (Kan.), 789.
Certain statutory requirements that railroads keep a constant
lookout for objects on track is for benefit of their employees
as well as others. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. White (Ark.), 319.
Negligence on part of railroad's employees, in action for injury
to switchman, who in alighting from an engine stepped on a
bolt and was thrown, essential elements of. Missouri, etc., Ry.
Co. v. Jones (Tex.), 346.
Car inspector's negligence is that of the railroad. Erie R. Co. v.
Schomer (C. C. A.), 303.
Duty of railroad to fireman, through employees operating the
train, to take notice of proximity of car on other track. St.
Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Phillips (Ala.), 792.
Instruction was erroneous in leaving to jury to determine what
was "in too close proximity" to the track, and because they
were not told that, if the switch stand in question was neg-
ligently placed too near or nearer than usual and customary,
defendant was liable. Southern Ry. Co. v. Lewis (Va.), 778.
Questions for jury as to negligence in location of mail crane
causing death of engineer and whether condition of track was
proximate cause of his death. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. Wil-
liams (Tex.), 770.
Presumption of Negligence.
Engineer killed by striking his head against mail crane near
track. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. Williams (Tex.), 770.
On part of master does not arise from mere happening of an
accident resulting in injury to an employee. Siegel v. Detroit,
etc., Ry. Co. v. (Mich.), 311.
Presumption that railroad was negligent, in action for injury to
switchman, who in alighting from engine stepped on a bolt and
was thrown, what evidence necessary to raise. Missouri, etc.,
Ry. Co. v. Jones (Tex.), 346.
MASTER AND SERVANT-Continued.
Failure to warn fireman that lubricator feed glass on locomotive
might sometimes break was not the proximate cause of his
injury from its breaking. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Wells
(Ark.), 638.
Qui facit per alium, facit per se has no application to willful acts
of servants, when doctrine of. Charleston, etc., Ry. Co. v. Dev-
lin (S. Car.), 341.
Railroad is not liable for injury to brakeman, where death did not
ensue, unless the negligence of its engineer causing it was gross.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Pearcy (Ky.), 326.
Agents' negligence, in operating locomotives across streets for
their own amusement, cause injury to third persons, liability
of railroad where its. Black . Rock Island, etc., R. Co.-
(La.), 65.
Certain evidence did not establish agency of division superin-
tendent so as to render service letter given to conductor dis-
charged after collision between trains admissible as having
been written within scope of his authority. Meyers v. San
Pedro, etc., R. Co. (Utah), 21.
Duty to give train signals in freight yards for benefit of railroad
employees. Ryan v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 71.
Duty to warn inexperienced servant of possible dangers of his
employment, where experience and instruction are not neces-
sary to enable him to do his work with safety. St. Louis, etc.,
Ry. Co. v. Wells (Ark.), 638.
Duty to warn 17 year old boy learning position of call boy_in
freight yard of apparent dangers. Ryan v. Northern Pac. Ry.
Co. (Wash.), 71.
Employment of minor by conductor. Hendrickson v. Louisville
& N. Ry. Co. (Ky.), 774.
Degree of care required of a master in furnishing a safe place
for work does not depend on the grade of the employment,
but on the character of the place and of the service to be per-
formed. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Tuck (Tex.), 748.
Instruction was erroneous, as leaving out of view the limitation
that the master is only bound to exercise ordinary care for
the safety of his servant with respect to furnishing him a safe
work place. Southern Ry. Co. v. Lewis (Va.), 778.
Ordinary care which a master is required to exercise to furnish
a reasonably safe place to work is to be determined by the
general usages of the business. Southern Ry. Co. v. Lewis
(Va.), 778.
Permitting grass to grow up so as to conceal rails placed near
track rendered railroad liable for injuries to its section hand
falling over them. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Tuck (Tex.), 748.
Railroad is not guilty of negligence in construction of switch
yard because at certain points the cars should not clear.
ters v. Bessemer & L. E. R. Co. (Pa.), 316.
See CARRIERS; CHILDREN; CONTRIBUTORY NEGLI-
GENCE; CROSSINGS; FELLOW SERVANTS; FIRES SET
35 R R R-53
BY LOCOMOTIVES; FRIGHTENING TEAMS; LICEN-
SEES; MASTER AND SERVANT; RAILROADS IN
STREETS; STATION AND DEPOTS; STOCK, INJURIES
TO; STREET RAILWAYS; TRESPASSERS; WATER AND
WATERCOURSES.
Assumption of risk is only applicable to case arising between mas-
ter and servant, doctrine of: Conrad v. Springfield Consol. Ry.
Co. (Ill.), 76.
Doctrine of, statement of. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Corbin's
Adm'r (Va.), 229.
Inadequacy of legislation as means of preventing injury, one
charged with tort resulting from violation of statute or ordi-
nance cannot show the general. Conrad v. Springfield Consol.
Ry. Co. (Ill.), 76.
Gross negligence, definition of.
Lexington Ry. Co. v. Johnson
Gross negligence is the absence of slight care.
R. Co. v. Smith (Ky.), 457.
Ordinance must be pleaded to be admissible in support of charge
of negligence. Dale v. Denver City Tramway Co. (C. C. A.), 83.
Proximate Cause.
Negligence, in order to be actionable, must have proximately
contributed to the injury. Weatherly v. Nashville, etc., Ry.
(Ala.), 759.
Questions for jury. Gould v. Merrill, etc., Co. (Wis.), 273.
Question for jury, and when question of law, when negligence is.
Harris v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (Okl.), 1.
Question for jury or question of law for the court.
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (Okl.), 410.
The test of negligence in the ordinary usage of the business.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Lewis (Va.), 778.
Duty of railroads to minimize amount of smoke from their prop-
erty. Tucker v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. (La.), 517.
Evidence did not show the vibration resulting from operation of
roundhouse to be of such character as to interfere with any sub-
stantial right of plaintiff so as to require removal of the works
of defendant. Tucker v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. (La.), 517.
Railroad will be ordered to use approved methods to minimize any
annoyance to adjoining owner's from its operations. Tucker v.
Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. (La.), 517.
Smoke, noise, and vibration caused by operation of roundhouse by
defendant near plaintiff's property, right to have nuisance of
abated. Tucker v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. (La.), 517.
Testimony regarding the whistling noise in question, resulting
from operation of roundhouse, was not such as to make up a
case requiring the interference of the court. Tucker v. Vicks-
burg, S. & P. Ry. Co. (La.), 517.
See CROSSINGS; NEGLIGENCE
PARENT AND CHILD.
See CHILDREN.
PERSONAL INJURIES.
See DAMAGES.
Damages.
Certain instruction on the subject of the elements of damages
was erroneous. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Pearcy (Ky.), 326.
Pain and suffering, jury must be governed by the evidence in
awarding damage for. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Dallas (Ark.),
$12,500 was not excessive verdict for permanent personal injuries.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith (Ky.), 457.
Liability of railroad for negligent injury is governed by law of
state where injury occurred. Weir v. Rountree (C. C. A.), 144.
PLEADING.
See EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY ACTS; MASTER AND SERV-
ANT; NEGLIGENCE.
POLICE OFFICERS.
See CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS.
POLICE POWER.
See CARRIERS OF LIVE STOCK.
Mere fact that person solicited freight and passenger business,
routing it over the connecting line of a foreign railroad com-
pany, as he did over all other lines connecting with the com-
panies by whom he was employed, did not make him an agent
of the former company on whom process might be served under
certain statute. Arrow Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Union Pac. R.
Co. (Wash.), 14.
Mere fact that a person was known and advertised as the "general
agent" of a foreign railroad company did not make him an agent
of the company upon whom process might be served, within cer-
tain statute. Arrow Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co.
(Wash.), 14.
RAILROAD COMMISSIONS.
See COMMON CARRIERS.
Appeal will not lie to Supreme Court of Oklahoma to review action
of Corporate Commission in requiring all railroad companies and
street car companies operating within state, upon the happening
of an accident, to send report thereof, both by telegraph and mail
to the Corporation Commission at its office in Guthrie. St. Louis
& S. F. Ry. Co. v. State (Okl.), 430.
Application for relief from orders of commissioners.
Florida E. C. Ry. Co. (Fla.), 423.
Authority to make and enforce rules and regulations to require
the furnishing of facilities for making connections between dif-
ferent railroads for use and convenience of public. State v. Flor-
ida E. C. Ry. Co. (Fla.), 423.
|