Illinois Central Railroad v. Skaggs

Citations

• 240 U.S. 66
• 36 S. Ct. 249
• 60 L. Ed. 528
• 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1426

Syllabus

<p>Where two employees of the carrier are necessarily working together, as under the exigencies existing in this case, each has a reasonable latitude in relying upon statements of thé other made in the course of and as a part of the operation, and if statements made negligently , by one result in injury of the other properly' relying thereon, the latter is not barred from recovering .under the Employers’ Liability Act. '</p> <p>The salutary rule, that' a party is not entitled to sit silent until after verdict; and then insist that it shall be set aside because the trial court failed to particularly specify in its charge some matter to which its' attention had not been suitably called, has not been altered by the local statute.of Minnesota under which errors in rulings and instructions may be specified on a motion for new trial without taking exceptions on the trial.</p> <p>This court concurs in. the view expressed by the state Appellate Court ' to the effect that an instruction on the question of contributory negligénee of thé plaintiff did not conform exactly to the proper interpretation of the Employers’ Liability Act, but that as the mistake was a verbal one whicji would undoubtedly have been corrected had attention been called thereto at thé time, which was not done, and as defendant was not prejudiced théreby, it was not error justifying-reversal of the judgment. •</p> <p>125 Minnesota, 532, affirmed.</p>