Skip to main content
· 12/4/1899

New England Railroad v. Conroy

Citations

  • 175 U.S. 323
  • 20 S. Ct. 85
  • 44 L. Ed. 181
  • 1899 U.S. LEXIS 1568

Syllabus

<p>The negligence of a conductor of a freight train is the negligence of a fellow servant of a brakeman on the same train, who was killed by an accident occurring through that negligence.</p> <p>The negligence of such conductor is not the negligence of the vice or substituted principal or representative of the railroad company running the train, and for which that corporation is responsible.</p> <p>The general rule of law is that one who enters the service of another takes upon himself the ordinary risks of the negligent acts of his fellow servants in the course of the employment.</p> <p>An employer is not liable for an injury to one employé occasioned by the negligence of another engaged in the same general undertaking; it is not necessary that the servants should be engaged in the same operation or particular work; it is enough, to bring the case within the general rule of exemption, if they are in the employment of the same master, engaged in the same common enterprise, both employed to perform duties tending to accomplish the same general purposes, or, in other words, if the services of each in his particular sphere or department are directed to the accomplishment of the same general end; and accordingly, in the present case, upon the facts stated, the conductor and the injui'ed brakeman are to be considered fellow servants within the rule.</p> <p>While the opinion in Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Co. v. Ross, 112 U. S. 377, contains a lucid exposition of many of the established rules regulating the relations between masters and servants, and particularly as respects the duties of railroad companies to their various employés, it went too far in holding that a conductor of a freight train is, ipso facto, a vice principal of the company; and in so far as it is to be understood as laying down, as a rule of law to govern in the trial of actions against railroad companies, that the conductor, merely from his position as such, is a vice principal, whose negli

Judges: Harlan, Shiras

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.