Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated R. R. v. Hawthorn

Citations

• 147 Ill. 226
• 35 N.E. 534

Syllabus

<p>1. Pellow-servants—whether the relation exists. Whether the relation of fellow-servants exists between employes of a common master is a question of fact. It is not enough, to make them such, that they are servants of the same master, employed in the same enterprise.</p> <p>2. If they are not associated together in the performance of their, duties, or their employment does not require co-operation, or bring them together or into such relations that they can exercise an influence upon each other promotive of proper caution, they are not fellow-servants, within the rule which exempts the master from liability for-injury to one through the negligence of the other.</p> <p>3. The employment of one as a member of a fence-gang does not, as a matter of law, bring him into co-operation with a locomotive engineer, or into such association or personal relation with the latter as that the former can exercise an influence over him promotive of proper caution in respect to their mutual safety.</p> <p>4. Where a person employed by a railroad company to unload fence-posts from a freight car attached to the locomotive, is injured by the-engineer starting the train suddenly and without notice or warning,, the servant so injured and the engineer can not be held, as a matter of law, to be fellow-servants, or as co-operating in a particular business..</p> <p>5. Pleading—action against employer*—for personal injury—denying that the injury was caused by a fellow-servant. In an action by a servant of a railway company to recover for a personal injury resulting; from the negligence of the engineer, the declaration averred that the plaintiff was a fence builder, and that he was injured by the sudden starting of the train while the plaintiff was attempting to get on a freight car to unload fence posts, and that the employe who carelessly-injured him was a locomotive engineer: Held, that the declaration stated facts showing that the negligence of the servant who caused the accident was not t