matter of skill and experience, and not of common understanding, the testimony of experts is admissible where the company's negligence in using any particular style is in issue.1 Boatwright v. Northeastern R. Co., 25 S. Car. 128. Virginia. Ayers v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 84 Va. 679; Johnson v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 84 Va. 713; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Ampey, 93 Va. 108. Brakemen on Same Train - Held to Be Fellowservants. - Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Rush, 84 Ill. 570; Young v. West Virginia, etc., R. Co., 42 W. Va. 112; Lagage v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 91 Wis. 507. Brakeman and Crew of Another Train. — A brakeman on one train is the fellow-servant of the employees in charge of and operating another train on the same railroad. McMaster v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 65 Miss. 264, 7 Am. St. Rep. 653. Switchman and Foreman of Construction Train. The railroad company is responsible for the negligence of a foreman in signaling for the train to back without waiting for an order to do so from the switchman making the coupling. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wallingford, (Ky. 1893) 22 S. W. Rep. 439. Yardmaster and Car Coupler-Held Not to Be Fellow-servants. - A yardmaster in command of the car couplers in his yard occupies the position of vice-principal to such car couplers, and is not a fellow-servant. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 91 Va. 668; Taylor v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., (Mo. 1891) 16 S. W. Rep. 206. Where a lad of sixteen years was killed while attempting to couple cars, there was a dispute as to whether he made the attempt by order of the yardmaster or not. It was held that if the evidence showed that he did so by order of the yardmaster the company was liable, but that if he made the attempt by his own volition he was a mere volunteer and could not recover. Hardy v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 657. Where an inspector discovered a defect in a coupling and marked the car as in bad order, but a yardmaster or those connected with the assembling of trains negligently placed the car in a train and a brakeman was injured, it was held that the company was liable, as the yardmaster was not a fellow-servant of a brakeman. Rodney v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 127 Mo. 676. A yardmaster whose business it is to see that cars are properly loaded is not a fellowservant of a brakeman injured by improper loading. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Seeley, 54 Kan. 21. Upon the question whether a yardmaster is a fellow-servant with a switchman, it is proper to admit evidence of the duties of yardmasters in the employ of the defendant comof pany, and other railroad companies. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Reed, (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) 32 S. W. Rep. 118. the yardmaster, in attaching a damaged car standing on a track in the yard to another car, the latter negligently signaled to an engineer whose train stood upon the track to back the train, which he did without signal or warning, and in consequence the intestate was crushed between the cars, receiving injuries resulting in his death. In an action to recover damages it was held that the yardmaster must be deemed a fellow-servant with the deceased as to all acts done within the range of the common employment. McCosker v. Long Island R. Co., 84 N. Y. 77. Station Men and Car Coupler. A servant whose business it is to load cars is a fellowservant of a brakeman injured by improper loading. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 102 Ind. 352. And where a car is loaded by the shipper and it is the duty of the station master to inspect such loading, his negligence to do so is the negligence of a fellow-servant of a brakeman injured thereby. Byrnes v. New York, etc., R. Co., 113 N. Y. 251; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Farmer, 73 Tex. 85. A station agent whose duty it is to see that cars are properly loaded is a fellow-servant of a brakeman who is killed while attempting to couple a car which is improperly loaded by reason of the negligence of the station agent. Byrnes v. New York, etc., R. Co., 113 N. Y. 251. In Foreman of Repair Shop and Car Coupler. Brabbitts v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 38 Wis. 289, a railroad brakeman was injured in the course of his employment while coupling two sections of a railroad train; and there was evidence tending to show that the injury was caused by the use of a defective switching engine. The engineer whose duty it was had several times previously notified the foreman of one of the company's repair shops of the defective condition of the engine. The foreman had charge of all the men in the repair shop, and was the person to whom, by the rules of the company, such defects should be reported and whose duty it was to have them repaired. It was held that an instruction to the effect that notice to the foreman was notice to the company was correct; that the foreman's negligence was the negligence of the company and not that of a fellow-servant, and the company was liable for the injury caused thereby. To the same effect is Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Rung, 104 Ill. 641. Whether Fellow-servants Or Not, a Question of Fact.- Whether the person injured and the person by whose negligence the injury is alleged to have occurred are fellow-servants of the same master, is a question of fact to be found by the jury from all the evidence in a given case, and not a question of law for the determination of the court. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Deardorff, 14 Ill. App. 401; Kimel v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 55 Ill. App. 244. In Respect to Negligence of Brakeman. But brakemen, baggage masters, conductors, and the like, are not competent to testify as experts in regard to what they consider the danger to a brakeman to be in coupling under certain circumstances. This is not a proper question for expert testimony, being a matter where the relations of facts and their probable results can be determined without special skill or study. For like reasons, it is not a question for an expert whether a brakeman is negligent in standing a certain way while coupling cars.2 1 cars was in issue, the testimony of experts was competent as to the advantages and disadvantages of such appliances, and to the dangers to which brakemen are exposed in coupling cars so equipped. Cited and approved in Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Frawley, 110 Ind. 18. In McDonald v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., (Mich. 1895) 65 N. W. Rep. 597, it was held that a locomotive engineer was competent to testify to the ability of coupling apparatus to withstand shocks if free from defects. Hooker, J., delivering the opinion of the court, said: " We cannot say that the opinion of the engineer upon the ability of that cross-bar, if sound, to withstand the shock, was not admissible. If not, it would be difficult to suggest a method of proving such fact if those familiar with the machine, and who had used it, could not give the jury the benefit of their experience and knowledge, which, of necessity, would take the shape of an opinion.' When, by the rules of a railroad company, a brakeman is required to examine cars and report defects he may discover to the con 1076 ductor, and he performs that duty, it does not lie with the company to dispute his qualification to testify as an expert concerning defects in a car so examined and reported by him Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Smock, 23 Colo. 456. 1. In Respect to Negligence of Brakemen. Hamilton v. Des Moines Valley R. Co., 36 Iowa 31; Muldowney v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 36 Iowa 462. In an action against a railroad company by a brakeman to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained while attempting to couple cars, a witness cannot testify as to whether an inexperienced man, who never had been instructed, could, the first time he attempted it, have made the coupling of the cars the plaintiff was attempting to couple when injured; such testimony not being of a fact, but of a matter of deduction or inference to be drawn by the jury from all the facts and circumstances of the case. Boland v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 106 Ala. 641. 2. Belair v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 43 Iowa 662. Volume VII. Employment of agent by bailee to work Hirer liable for acts of agent, 315 Copyright: Penalties, 591 Contracts, 100 Corporations, 808, 809 Banks as agent, 809 Criminal law, 847 Estoppel, 809 Holding out as agent, 809 Liability for wilful acts of agents, 826 Manufacturing corporations as agents, 810 Purchase by corporation of its own shares Subscription or purchase through agent or Counterfeiting, 883 AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY: Contracts of hire, 301, 322 Power to borrow money, 773 AIDERS AND ABETTORS: Counterfeiting, 883 ALIENS, see CONTRACT LABOR LAW. Consuls : Assignment to nonresident alien, 565 Assigns of nonresident alien author, 546, 548 Literary property, 519 Renewal by assignee of native owner of ALIMONY: Contempt: Imprisonment for nonpayment of alimony, 41 Necessity of personal demand for pay- ment, 41 Whether imprisonment is imprisoment ALTERATION: Construction, 2 ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS: Ratification, 144 AMBASSADORS, see Consuls. AMENDMENTS: Corporations: Power of congress to amend territorial Special act amending charter, 643 County commissioners: Records, 986 ARSON: Corncrib, 597 ARTIFICIAL PERSONS, see CORPORA- Right to freight where assignment is made Conveyances, 491, 492 Copyright, 565 Agreement to assign, 566 Alien assignee of native owner of copy- Assignability of literary property, 516 Assignment of partial interest, 565 Assignment to nonresident alien, 565 Conditional assignments, 517 Construction of assignments, 517, 518 Effect of assignment on right to sell License to publish, 566 Necessity of writing, 565 Necessity of writing to the assignment of Paintings, 517 Disobedience of order requiring payment Filing fictitious suit, 44 Illustrations of what are not contempts, 45 Services of attorney appointed to defend County commissioners: Power of commissioners to employ counsel, 992 Service beyond limits of county, 992 AUDITING, see COUNTIES. AUTHOR, see COPYRIGHT. Contribution and exoneration: One surety for original debt and other on BAILMENTS (see CONTRACTS OF HIRE): BANK NOTES, see COUNTERFEITING. BANKRUPT ACT: BANKRUPTCY (see INSOLVENCY): BANKS AND BANKING (see Counterfeit- Acting as broker, 704, 809 Banking by other than banking corpora- |