Buckner v. Richmond & Danville Railroad

Citations

• 72 Miss. 873

Syllabus

<p>1. Railkoads. 1'iijm'n to employe. Defectnme machinery. Declaration. Averment of negligence.</p> <p>In an action against a railroad company by a section foreman, to recover for personal injuries sustained in operating a hand-car, the declaration is not demurrable on the g’round of not showing negligence, when it avers that the hand-car furnished him was defective in having’ a broken wheel and a lever that made its operation dangerous to those on it, and that these defects were the direct and immediate cause of the injury.</p> <p>3. Sam®. Defective machinery. Injury to employe. Contributory negligence.</p> <p>Section 193, constitution 1890, which provides that knowledge by employes of the defective or dangerous condition of machinery or appliances shall not be a defense to a railroad company in an action for injuries thereby caused, does not destroy the defense of contributory negligence. It merely abrogates the previous rule that such knowledge was, of itself, a bar. Employes are not absolved from the duty, binding’ on all, to use ordinary care to avoid injury, and such knowledg-e, though no long-er of itself a defense, is yet material in determining whether, with such knowledge, the employe exercised due care. Welsh v. Railway Co., 70 Miss., 30, explained.</p> <p>3. Master asd Servant. Lessee of mibroad. Injury to employe. Lessor not liable.</p> <p>The servant of the lessee of a railroad cannot recover of the lessor for injury sustained in the use of defective machinery, although it be shown that it was leased in that condition. He must look for redress to his master, the lessee.</p>