Donegan v. Baltimore & N. Y. Ry. Co.
Citations
- 165 F. 869
- 91 C.C.A. 555
- 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4808
Syllabus
<p>1. Negligence (§ 136*) — Proximate Cause of Injury — Question of Law ok of Fact.</p> <p>It is only when the facts are clearly settled and but: one inference can possibly be drawn therefrom that the question of proximate cause is one of law.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. §§ 292, 300; Dec. Dig. § 136.*]</p> <p>2. Master and Servant (§ 285*) — Injury to Brakeman — Violation of Safety Appliance Act.</p> <p>Plaintiff was a brakeman on a freight train of defendant’s railroad being moved in interstate business, and was directed to cut off the two rear ears while the train was moving slowly and before it readied a certain switch. The automatic coupler on one of the cars was broken, and plaintiff went between the cars and a 1 temp Led to pull the pin by hand, but, not succeeding, started out, when bis foot caught in an unblocked switch, frog and he was injured. Held, in an action to recover for the injury, that the question whether the failure of defendant to have the car properly' equipped was the proximate cause of the injury, so as to render it liable therefor under the safety appliance act of March 2, 1893, e. 196, §’ 8, 27 Stat. 532 (ü. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3176), was, under the evidence, one of fact for the jury, and that it was error for the court to direct a verdict for defendant.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 1020; Dee. Dig. § 285.*</p> <p>Duty of railroad companies to furnish safe appliances, see note to Felton v. Bullard, 37 C. C. A. 8.]</p> <p>3. Master and Servant (§ 289*) — Injury to Buatcejian — Contributory Negligence.</p> <p>In an action by a brakeinan against a railroad company to recover for an injury received in attempting to uncouple cars in a moving train, the question of contributory negligence held, under the evidence, one for the jury.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 1089; Dec. Dig. § 289.*]</p> <p>4. Master and Servant (§ 132*)
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- employee’s communication to corporation’s attorney, made at the direction of his superiors in the corporation, was privileged
- employee' s communication G No. 46467 -5 -II to corporation' s attorney, made at the direction of his superiors in the corporation, was privileged
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Coxe, Lacombe, Noyes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.