Coffee v. Monongahela Railway Co.

Citations

• 243 Pa. 433
• 90 A. 138
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 641

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Braheman—“Poling” cars — Safe instrumentality — Contributory negligence — Binding instructions.</p> <p>1. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff who was employed at the time of the accident as a brakeman on one of the defendant company’s trains and had had previous experience as a freight conductor, binding instructions for defendant are proper where it appears that in the course of plaintiff’s employment it became necessary in the switching of cars to make use of a pole which was placed so as to reach diagonally from the corner of one car to the corner of another upon the adjoining track, so that when the first car moved, it would push along with it, by means of the pole, the second car; that for the purpose of so “poling” the cars the locomotive attached to the train in question was equipped with a strong pole six or seven feet in length; that the plaintiff made no attempt to use such pole but instead used a piece of hemlock scantling, which plaintiff said he knew had been intended for use as a stanchion at the side of a freight car, and which he testified was cross-grained and full of slivers, and unsafe to use for such purpose; and that the hemlock pole broke under the pressure which was put upon it and caused the injuries of which the plaintiff complained.</p> <p>2. In such a case the fact that the conductor told plaintiff to use the piece of hemlock does not excuse the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.</p>