Indianapolis Bloomington & Western R. R. v. Flanigan

Citations

• 77 Ill. 365

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence—suffering cars to get out of repair. If the coupling of a freight car suddenly becomes out of repair, the railway company using the same will not he liable for an injury to an employee, received in consequence thereof, unless its attention had been called to the defect, or the company, by the exercise of a high degree of care, could have discovered the defect, and had an opportunity to make the needed repairs.</p> <p>3. Same—use of buffers requiring greater care in coupling cars. A railway company will not be liable to an employee for personal injury received while coupling cars having double buffers, simply because a higher degree of care is required in using them than in those differently constructed.</p> <p>3. Railroads—liability for injury to employee. If a servant of a railway company knows that the company is operating a class of cars which are unsafe, when he enters its service, and he continues in the same, he will assume the risks and hazards of the service, and can not recover for a personal injury from the use of such a class of cars, the company being guilty of no negligence.</p> <p>4. Same—servant of, assumes the risks incident to his service. An em. ployee assumes all the ordinary hazards arising from the performance of his voluntary engagements. If a servant of a railway company receives a personal injury, while in the discharge of his duties, from any cause outside the ordinary dangers of the service, and it is not the result of unusual or unexpected perils, or the negligence of the company, he can not recover damages from the company.</p> <p>5. A very different question arises where the servant of a railway company is injured by the use of a car defective and unfit for service when received, or when the company suffers it, while in its possession, to he out of order and unsafe, and the defect is not known to the servant before the injury.</p> <p>6. Negligence—•comparative. In a case involving the question of mutual negligence of the