Bellows v. Pa. & N. Y. Canal & R. R.

Citations

• 157 Pa. 51
• 27 A. 685
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1399

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Negligence — Railroads—Master and Servant — Instruction.</p> <p>There is no duty upon the part of a railroad company to instruct a skilled and experienced engineer in the clangers of a locomotive which he is set to operate, where the new locomotive is of the same general character as the one to which he had been accustomed.</p> <p>Plaintiff, a locomotive engineer, was injured while leaning out of the cab window, by his head coming in contact with the ironwork of a bridge. He had been in the employ of the defendant company as brakeman, fireman and engineer for about twenty years, and was familiar with the road and the bridge at which he was injured. There was no evidence that the roadbed and bridge were not properly constructed and in good repair. At the time of the accident, the defendant company had entered into an agreement to permit certain trains of another company to run over its road. Plaintiff was assigned to instruct the engineer of one of these trains as to the peculiarities of the road. The width of the cab on the engine on which plaintiff usually ran was eight feet and six inches, while the width of the cab of the engine on which he was acting as pilot was nine feet. The space between the side of the cab of the latter engine and the ironwork of the bridge was about twenty inches, when the engine was at rest. This would be somewhat reduced by the swaying motion of the engine when pulling the train. Plaintiff was not notified of the width of the new engine. Seld, that plaintiff was not entitled to recover.</p>