MASTER AND SERVANT.
Excessive Speed.

Precautions taken by employe to
avoid injury. Instructions,
346 n.
Injuries to bridge watchman.
Sufficiency of complaint, 347 n.
Failure to give statutory signals.
Injuries at place other than
crossing. 347 n.
Erections, etc., near Track.
Employe only assumes risk from
structures near track when he
has notice thereof. Johnson v.
St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. (Minn.),
293.
Brakeman informed of existence

of stone piles beside track as-
sumes risk of accident there-
from. Smith v. Winona & St.
P. R. Co. (Minn.), 289.
Employer's negligence in locating
signal post 4 feet from rail held
to be for the jury. Johnson v.
St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. (Minn.),
293.

Erections and obstructions adjoin-

ing track, 292 n.
Overhead Bridges.

Brakeman is not entitled to recover
for injury from overhead bridge,
when by exercise of ordinary
observation he must have known
height of same. Williams v.
Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (N.
Y.). 254.

Brakeman on top of car held not
entitled to recover for injuries
alleged to be sustained while in
a sitting posture by structure at
height too great to strike any
seated person.
Hunter v. New
York, O. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.),
248.

Exemplary damages, 258 n.
Obligation of company to em-
ployes in constructing bridges,
256 n.

Risks assumed by train hands,

257 n.

Contributory negligence of em-
ployes, 258 n.

Notice to company of dangerous
condition of bridge. Evidence,
258 n.

Liability when bridge constructed
by other than railroad company,
258 n.

Rules and Regulations.

Rules requiring engineer to have
control of engine when view ob-

MASTER AND SERVANT.
Rules and Regulations-Centin-
ued.

structed, to run delayed trains
with caution, and to approach
stations with reduced speed,
simply impose obligation im-
posed by law on engineer. Lake
Shore & M, S. R. Co. v. Parker
(Ill.), 339.

Employe is not bound by rules of
which he is ignorant and which
have never been brought to his
notice by company. Carroll v.
East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co.
(Ga.), 307.

Duty of company to prescribe rules.
Instructions, 315 m.
Omission to prescribe.

Duty of
employe. Evidence of usage,
315 n.

Construction. Duty to report de-
fect, 315 n.

Applicability. Displaying signal.
Car repairer 315 n.

Ringing of engine bell.

proof of rule, 314 m.

Parol

Neglect to observe requirements.
Displaying signals, 314 .
Getting upon engine in violation
of, 315 n.

Admissibility of book containing
rules. Knowledge of employe,
315 n.

Parol proof of rule attached to
applications for employment,
314 n.

Risks of Employment. See also

Coupling; Erections, etc., near

Track; Overhead Bridges, supra.
Risk from unpacked frog held not
to be assumed by switch fore-
man although he had notice of
danger. Le May v. Canadian
Pac. R. Co. (Ont.), 331.
Superintendent of furnace as-
sumes risk of injury at crossing
within premises through opera-
tion of cars upon railroad in
connection with fouudry. Adams
v. Iron Cliffs Co. (Mich.), 414.
Incompetent Co-Employes.
Selection of foreman. Reputation
of unfitness and specific acts of
negligence or incompetency held
admissible to prove incompe.
tency of foreman. Grube 2.
Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo.), 357.
Reputation of engineer for incom-
petency and unfitness may be
proved. Lake Shore & M. S. R.

MASTER AND SERVANT.
Incompetent Co-Employes-Con-
tinued.

Co. v. Stupak (Ind.), 382.
Knowledge

of incompetency.
Special finding must show that
employer had notice and time
to investigate and discharge be-
fore accident. Lake Shore & M.
S. R. Co. v. Stupak (Ind.), 382.
Retention. Complaint alleging
plaintiff had no notice of engi-
neer's incompetency, but that
defendant had, held sufficient.
Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v.
Stupak (Ind.), 382.

Evidence as to plaintiff's dec-
larations concerning engineer's
incompetency held inadmissible.
Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v.
Stupak (Ind.), 382.

Complaint alleging retention
of incompetent employe held suf-
ficient upon demurrer. Lake
Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Stupak
(Ind,), 382.

Complaint need not specify
officer having notice of engi
neer's incompetency. Lake
Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Stupak
(Ind.), 382.

Promise to discharge, 363 n.
Engineer. Admissibility of record
of accidents, 314 n.

- Evidence as to carelessness.
Opinion of brakeman, 362 n.
Evidence. Necessity of re-
pairs to engine, 362 n.

-Sufficiency of evidence, 363 n.
Instructions. Evidence of negli-
gence, 353 n.

Special findings negativing negli-
Verdict for plaintiff,

gence.

363 n.
Fellow-Servants.

Who are. Bridge watchman and
engineer and conductor of train,
450 n.

Car repairer and foreman,
443 n.

Employe engaged to fill sand
box of engine is fellow-servant
of brakeman upon train. Louis-
ville, N. O. & T. R. Co. v. Petty
(Miss.), 444.

Engineer of train used on
premises of iron company held
to be fellow-servant of found-
er employed to superintend fur-
nace. Adams 7. Iron Cliffs Co.
(Mich.), 414.

MASTER AND SERVANT.
Fellow-Servants-Continued.

Engineer held not to be fellow-
servant of employe of independ-
ent contractor engaged in filling
coal pockets for supply of en-
gine. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Bil-

leter (Neb.), 431.

Engineer and fireman of loco-
motive engaged in moving car
held to be fellow-servants of sec-
tion hand injured through their
negligence. Harrison v. Detroit,
L. & N. R. Co. (Mich.), 398.

Engineer is not fellow-servant
of yard switchman injured by
his negligence. Louisville & N.
R. Co. v. Sheets (Ky.), 470.

Engineers and switchmen,

472 n.
Express messenger and em-
ploye of railroad company, 436 n.

Master mechanic is not co-
employe of machinist engaged
under his direction in repairing
engine. Taylor v. Evansville &
T. H. R. Co. (Ind.), 437.

Trackmen are fellow-servants
of train hands when negligence
of latter causes injury to former,
477 n.

Train dispatcher and fireman
of train operated under his direc-
tions are not fellow-servants.
Hunn v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.
(Mich.), 452.

Of train dispatchers, 463 n.

Train hands are not fellow-
servants of trackmen injured by
their negligence. Howard v.
Delaware & H. Can. Co. (C. C.),
473.

Train hands are fellow-serv-
ants of brakeman of another train
injured by their negligence.
McMaster v. Illinois Cent. R.
Co. (Miss.), 486.

Watchman upon curve of ca-
ble railway and gripman of car
held to be fellow-servants. Mur-
ray v. St. Louis Cable & W. R.
Co. (Mo.), 446.

Boy volunteering at request
of railroad hands to assist in
moving car is not fellow-servant
of such railroad hands. Rhodes
v. Georgia R. & B. Co. (Ga.),
302.
Vice-principal. Person having
control of distinct department
is. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v.

MASTER AND SERVANT.

Fellow-Servants-Continued.
Sullivan (Neb.), 463.

Assistant roadmaster in
charge of division of railroad is
vice-principal, and not fellow-
servant of section hand. Har-
rison. Detroit, L. & N. R. Co.
(Mich.), 398.

Car repairer requested before
leaving employment to give in-'
struction to his successor is not
the fellow-servant of his succes-
sor, but is vice-principal. Chi-
cago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Sullivan
(Neb.), 463.

Negligence of instructor furnished

by employer, 470 n.
Instruction held erroneous in fail-
ing to distinguish between vice-
principal and fellow-servant.
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Sul-j
livan (Neb,), 463.

Promise of foreman to keep look-
out, 443 #.

Injury to laborer through negli-

gence of foreman, 442 я.
Contributory negligence of fellow-
servants held not to preclude re-
covery where accident caused by
negligence of employer. Hunn
2. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.),

MASTER AND SERVANT.
Contributory Negligence-Con-
tinued.

of another, 413 n.
Car
330 n.
Section hand remaining in dan-
gerous place, even upon order
of roadmaster, is guilty of con-
tributory negligence. Harrison
v. Detroit, L. & N. R. Co.
(Mich.), 398.

repairer. Kicking,

Failure to extricate oneself from
dangerous position, 413 n.
Brakeman. Forgetfulness of de-
fect, 429 ".

Gross recklessness of conductor
of gravel train, 429 #.
Excessive speed does not bar re-
covery by engineer when acci-
dent not caused thereby. Lake
Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Parker,
(Ill.), 339.

Engineer running train at usual
speed with view of switch ob-
scured, question held to be for
jury. Lake Shore & M. S. R.
Co. v. Parker (Ill.), 339.
Instruction that engineer bound
to control train so as to stop in
time to avoid collision on side
track of which switch left open,
held properly refused. Lake
Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Parker
(III.), 339.

Consideration of conduct of en-
gineer at and prior to time of
accident, instructions held not
to be erroneous. Lake Shore &
M. S. R. Co. v. Parker, (Ill.),
339.

Court cannot hold as matter of
law, that employe was negligent
in failing to avoid danger from
signal post near track. John-
son v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co.
(Minn.), 293.

Fireman remaining upon locomo-
tive with sleeping engineer may
be guilty of contributory negli
gence. Carroll v. East Tennes-
see V. & G. R. Co. (Ga.), 307.
Failure of fireman to keep engi-
neer awake. Instructions re-
stricting period during which
negligence extended held erro-
neous. Carroll v. East Tennes-
see, V. & G. R. Co. (Ga.), 307.
Switchnan on top of load of lum-
ber, 428 n.

Walking upon track unnecessarily

MASTER AND SERVANT.

Contributory

tinued.

Negligence-Con-

held contributory negligence
precluding recovery by brake-
man. Pennsylvania R. Co. v.
O'Shaughnessy (Ind.). 479.
Unnecessarily going upon rail-
road track, 413 n.

Evidence held sufficient to sustain
finding that plaintiff not guilty
of contributory negligence.
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Billeter
(Neb.), 431.

Province of jury, 428 n.
Servant assumes such extraordi-

nary risks as he voluntarily en-
counters. Smith v. Winona &
St. P. R. Co. (Minn.), 289.

Evidence.

supra.

See also Appliances,

Admissibility of. Narrow escape
of another employe, 380 n.

Reputation for carefulness,
320 n.

Custom to use old rails for
side tracks admissible upon
question of company's negli-
gence. Doyle v. St. Paul, M.
& M. R. Co. (Minn.), 376.

Evidence that accidents from
employes being caught by
splinter on inside of rail not
known to have happened admis-
sible. Doyle v. St. Paul, M. &
M. R. Co. (Minn.), 376.

Evidence held admissible to
show that relief to fireman on
engine with sleeping engineer
would have followed in a speci-
fied way according to usage of
company. Carroll v. East Ten-
nessee, V. & G. R. Co. (Ga.),

307.

Report to general manager
concerning accident not admis-
sible. Carroll v. East Tennes-
see, V. & G. R. Co. (Ga.), 307.
Agent sent to injured employe to
obtain statement concerning ac-
cident is not authorized to bind
company by declarations as to
circumstances.
Doyle v. St.
Paul, M. & M. R. Co. (Minn.),
376.
Practice of others in climbing lad-
der on freight car when train in
motion is not admissible.
Southern Kansas R. Co. v.
Robbins (Kan.), 316.
Presumption, in absence of eye'

MASTER AND SERVANT.
Evidence-Continued.

witnesses of accident, is that
deceased exercised due care and
caution in attempting to cross
railroad track. Adams v. Iron
Cliffs Co. (Mich.), 414.

of negligence arising from
happening of accident, 354 n.
Res gesta.
Statement of track
walker to section boss, 381 n.
MUNICIPAL AID.

Conflict between decisions of state
and federal courts held sufficient
to authorize compromise by
county of aid bonds. State v.
Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. (Mo.),
581.
NEGLIGENCE.

See also CONTRIBU-
TORY NEGLIGENCE; CROSSINGS ;
MASTER AND SERVANT; PASSEN-
GERS; TRESPASSERS.

to

Absence of bunters on side track
to prevent cars from running
upon street held sufficient
show negligent construction.
Shaw 7. New York & N. E. R.
Co. (Mass.), 547.

Allowing water to fall from stand
pipe for supplying locomotives
upon side track where it froze,
held sufficient to prove negli
gence. Canfield v. Chicago &
W. M. R. Co. (Mich.), 566.
Use of inferior engine with fire-
man as engineer in running ac-
commodation trains to fair
grounds held negligence. Pey-
ton v. Texas & P. R. Co. (La.),
550.
Comparative negligence does not
govern right to recover in Ten-
nessee. East Tennessee, V. &
G. R. Co. v. Hull (Tenn.) 495.
Comparative negligence. Rules
adopted by respective states,
497 n.

Complaint alleging injuries
through gross" negligence
must allege that injury was in-
flicted wilfully or through mal-
ice. McAdoo v. Richmond & D.
R. Co. (N. Car.), 524.
Gross negligence only overcomes
contributory negligence when it
is wanton, reckless or intention-
al. Carrington v. Louisville &
N. R. Co. (Ala.), 543.
Parent and auxiliary company.
Liability of parent company for
negligence of auxiliary compa-

NEGLIGENCE-Continued

ny. 26 n.
Liability of parent company
for negligence of auxiliary com-
pany in obstructing stream and
causing overflow. Kankakee &
S. R. Co. v. Horan (Ill.), 13.
Unauthorized lease. Company
cannot, without legislative au-
thority turn over its road to an-
other company to exempt itself
from liability. Ricketts v.
Chesapeake & O. R. Co. (W.
Va.). 42.

Employe of owners of private
track charged with duty of un-
coupling cars placed upon track
is person engaged on or about
railroad within the meaning of
Pennsylvania statute. Stone v.
Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 522.
Construction of Pennsylvania
statute. Person engaged about
cars or railroad of company of
which he is not an employe,
523 n.

Pleadings. Alleging specific acts
of negligence, 483 n.
Recovery for injuries to plaintiff

and to his horse and buggy may
be had under claims set up in
one count when no demurrer
filed. Chicago W. D. R. Co. v.
Ingraham (Ill.), 243.

Instruction as to omission to per-
form duty held not to be mis-
leading. Chicago W. D. R. Co.
v. Ingraham (Ill.), 243.
Personal injuries. Review on ap-
peal. Extent of injuries, 547 n.
NEW TRIAL. See DRAINS AND
DITCHES SPECIAL FINDINGS.
Newly discovered testimony im-
peaching competency of expert
does not justify granting of new
trial. Hooker v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. R. Co. (Wis.), 498.
NUISANCE.
Auxiliary company built in inter-
est of older road; liability of
parent company for act of, in
obstructing watercourse. Kan-
kakee & S. R. Co. v. Horan
(Ill.), 13.

Joint tort-feasors. Parent and
auxiliary companies. Mortgage
by auxiliary company held not
admissible in evidence to es-
tablish point that company own-
ing road was sole actor. Kan-
kakee & S. R. Co. v. Horan

Persons hailing street car, etc.,
65 n.

Persons leaving car, 65 #.
Persons leaving cars at interme-
diate stations, 66 n.
Transportation obtained by fraud,
66 n.

Permission of employes to travel
on train, 68 n.
Freight train; person traveling
on against rules and conductor's
orders, although told to get on
by brakeman, held not a pas
senger. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co.
v. Campbell (Tex.), 100.
Trespasser.

Evidence conflict-
ing as to whether plaintiff was
passenger or trespasser while
riding on platform. Instruction
withdrawing question from jury
held erroneous. Chicago, B. &
Q. R. Co. v. Mehlsack (Ill.), 60.
What employes may invite or per-
mit persons to travel as passen-
gers, 69 n.

Drovers travelling in charge of
cattle, 70 n.

Express messengers, 70 #.
Mail agents, 70 n

Newsboys, etc., 70 n.

Employes riding to and from work,

71 n.