Skip to main content
· 3/24/1898

Holmes v. Southern Pacific Co.

Citations

  • 120 Cal. 357
  • 52 P. 652
  • 1898 Cal. LEXIS 771

Syllabus

<p>Negligence—Railroad—Coupling Oars—Difference in Elevation of Drawheads.—The mere fact that the drawheads of two freight-cars which a switchman on a railroad was engaged in coupling, and which were otherwise in good condition, differed in elevation from the track by from two to three inches, is not of itself sufficient evidence of the negligence of the railroad to render it liable for an injury suffered by the employee while in the act of coupling. If the risk of the switch-man’s occupation was thus increased, it was a risk which he assumed by his contract.</p> <p>Id.—Fellow-servant—Swiftly Moving Cars. — The fact that the cars were too rapidly moved by the engineer, if negligence at all, was the act of a fellow-servant, for which the company is not responsible.</p> <p>Id.—Rule of Company—Impracticability of Operation—Public Policy.— A rule promulgated by a railroad company, purporting to direct its employees with respect to the manner in which they should perform certain work, which is utterly impracticable in operation, or rendered so by the mode and conditions under which the service is required, and the only result of which would be to relieve the employer from the obligations imposed upon him by law to use ordinary diligence in furnishing safe appliances with which to work, and safe conditions. for the performance of the service, is against public policy and void, and its nonobservance by the employee will not relieve the railroad from liability for a negligence for which it would otherwise have been liable.</p>

Judges: Garoutte, Temple

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.