Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Tynan

Citations

• 119 F. 288
• 56 C.C.A. 192
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4667

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant—Defective Railroad Cars—Assumed Risk.</p> <p>It is the duty of a railroad company, which it owes to its employés as well as to the public, to use reasonable care to see that the cars used on its road are in good order and fit for the purposes for which they are intended; and an employé has the right to rely upon the performance of this duty, and does not assume the risk arising from the company’s neglect to perform it.</p> <p>2. Same—Contributory Negligence—Coupling Cars.</p> <p>The burden of proving contributory negligence of an employé, to defeat recovery for his injury, rests on the master; and it must be shown not only that he was negligent, but that his negligence caused or contributed to the injury. The fact that a brakeman, killed while attempting to couple cars on a side track which was on a curve, was working from the inside of the curve, does not warrant an- instruction that he was guilty of negligence, as a matter of law,—much less, that he was guilty of contributory negligence,—where there was evidence that, with the cars to be coupled, there was as little danger on the inside as on the outside.</p> <p>S. Same—Action for Death of Brakeman—Question for Jury.</p> <p>Plaintiff’s intestate, while employed as a brakeman by defendant railroad company, was killed while attempting to couple two cars on a side track. One of the cars was equipped with an old-style Miller hook coupler. It was little used, and when used was coupled to ears having link and pin couplers; but it was not blocked to hold the hook in position, as customary when such cars are so used, and was old and not in good repair. The other car had also, an old-style skeleton link and pin coupler, not generally in use, and the coupling between the two was more than usually dangerous. Deceased was not instructed as to the kind of couplers, and, so far as appeared, did not know the kind in use on such cars. Held, that defendant was negligent in-the use of such appliances, and t