Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Hoyt

Citations

• 122 Ill. 369
• 12 N.E. 225

Syllabus

<p>1. FeI/IiOW-sebvants—who to be so regarded—as to locomotive engineer and car inspector. The servants of the same master, to be co-employes, so as to exempt the master from liability on account of injuries to one re-suiting from the negligence of another, must be directly co-operating with each other in a particular business,—that is, in the same line of employment,—or their mutual duties must bring them into such habitual association that they may exercise a mutual influence on each other promotive of proper caution.</p> <p>2. It was the duty of a car inspector to inspect freight cars on their arrival at the yards of the company. As soon as a train arrived the superintendent of that department directed the inspector to go upon the cars and begin the work of inspection, which he did on this occasion as soon as the train came to a full stop, and when about to step from one car to another, the engineer, without warning', suddenly started the engine with such unusual force that the train parted, and the inspector fell upon the track and was injured. The proof showed that when a freight train came to a certain place, as it did on the particular occasion, the engineer’s duty' in respect to the train ceased, and it was his duty to take his locomotive to-the engine house, and after the inspection the train would be broken up by a switch-engine and set apart: Held, that the engineer and inspector were not fellow-servants engaged in the same employment, and that the railway company was liable for the injury to the inspector, he having been found, to have exercised due care.</p> <p>3. In such case, the duties of the engineer ceased at or before the-inspector’s began, so that it was impossible for the one to have exercised any influence whatever over the other, and therefore an instruction based upon the theory of their being fellow-servants was properly refused.</p>