Day v. Louisiana Western R.

Citations

• 121 La. 180
• 46 So. 203
• 1908 La. LEXIS 649

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant — Injury to Servant —Contributory Negligence.</p> <p>Where the servant undertakes to discharge the duty for which he is employed in a manner more hazardous than that contemplated or required, he assumes the risk, and there can be no recovery of damages for injury resulting therefrom. Thus, where a railroad switchman is warned, by a rule of the company employing him and by special admonition, not to attempt to uncouple moving cars, and, whilst between two cars for the purpose of uncoupling them, signals the engineer to move, he assumes the resulting risk of such movement. Nor does it affect the question that his failure to get out in time to save himself is caused by his getting his foot wedged between the guard and the track rails; for, though it should be conceded that the company was negligent in failing to block the space between the two rails, the danger resulting therefrom would not have affected the switchman if he had been discharging his duty in the manner contemplated by his employment.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, §§ 559-566.]</p> <p>2. Same — Negligence oe Fellow Servant.</p> <p>Where a locomotive engineer and a switch-man are members of a switching crew operating in a railroad yard, the movements of the switch engine being directed by the signals of the switchman, the two are fellow servants, and there can be no recovery of damages for injuries resulting to the switchman from the negligence of the engineer, unless it be alleged and proved that the latter was incompetent or negligent to the knowledge of the common employer, or such knowledge can fairly be imputed to the common employer.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, §§ 493-514.]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>