Morris v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co.

Citations

• 108 F. 747
• 47 C.C.A. 661
• 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3820

Syllabus

<p>1. Railway Companies may Use Reasonable Discretion in Construction.</p> <p>Railway companies have the right to exercise reasonable judgment and discretion in the construction of their roadbeds, rails, and safety appliances.</p> <p>2. Negligence-Unusual but Reasonable Size of Blocking No Evidence of.</p> <p>A railway company used a piece of lumber one inch thicker, six inches wider, and one foot longer than the customary blocking to fill the space between a guard rail and a main rail. Held, the use of this blocking of unnsnal size was but the rightful exercise of the judgment of the company, and was no evidence of negligence, or of liability for an injury resulting from a brakeman’s stumbling over it.</p> <p>3. Contributory Negligence — Choosing the More Dangerous of Two Methods of Discharging a Duty is Evidence of.</p> <p>When there is a- comparatively safe and a more dangerous way known to a servant, by means of which he may discharge his duty, it is negligence for him to select the more dangerous method, and he thereby assumes the risk of the injury which its use entails.</p> <p>4. Same. ¿</p> <p>A railway train was equipped with two levers, — one on each side of it,— to enable the brakemen to draw a pin between two cars without entering between them. The machinery attached to the lever on the side of the plaintiff was out of order, while that attached to the lever on the opposite side was in good condition. Held, the fact that the brakoman chose to, and did, step in between the cars while in motion to draw the pin, instead of using the lever on the opposite side of the train, provided for the purpose, was evidence of negligence contributing to an injury resulting from his scumbling while walking between the cars.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>