Gilbert v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

Citations

• 123 F. 832
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4948

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant—Injury of Switchman—Questions for Jury.</p> <p>Where plaintiff, who was foreman of a switching crew in the yards of defendant’s railroad, was injured by having his foot caught in the space between a guard rail and main rail, which was not blocked, and it was shown to have been the practice of defendant in such yards to keep the guard rails blocked, but that the blocking in this particular place had been out for some days or weeks, and it was not shown that plaintiff knew such fact, the court is not justified in taking from the jury the question of defendant’s want of ordinary care, or the question whether plaintiff, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of the defect, and assumed the risk therefrom.</p> <p>2. Same—Contributory Negligence.</p> <p>Plaintiff was foreman of a switching crew in railroad yards, and was engaged in distributing cars on various tracks, the movements of the engine being directed by signals from him. In attempting to uncouple a car from another, both of which were equipped with automatic couplers, with a lever and crank, operated from the side, for raising the pin, while such cars were in motion, he tried the crank on the rear car; and, it failing to raise the pin, he went between the ears and raised it with his hand, but while there caught his foot between the rails, and was run over and injured. The crank on the forward car was on the other side, and he might have used it by going around, or could have stopped the engine by a signal. ' It did not appear that the appliance was defective, but the pin was probably held by pressure while the cars were moving. Held1 that, in choosing the more dangerous method in cutting off the car, plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, which precluded his recovery for the injury.</p>