Pennsylvania Co. v. Fishack

Citations

• 123 F. 465
• 14 Ohio F. Dec. 86
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4022

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant—Operation of Railroad—Duty of Company.</p> <p>A railroad company owes a positive duty to its employés with respect to the construction and maintenance in proper repair of its tracks, cars, and other appliances, but with respect to the operation of the road its duty extends no further than to exercise ordinary care to provide a sufficient number of reasonably competent employés, make proper rules for their government, and to exercise proper supervision over them. When that has been done, it is not liable for an injury to an employé in the operation of the road, through the negligence of other employés in the operating department or their failure to observe the rules.</p> <p>2. Same—Liability for Injury of Employe.</p> <p>A railroad company is not liable for the injury of a fireman on a switch engine through a collision at night with cars standing on a switch track, brought about by an erroneous statement by the yard master that the track was clear.</p> <p>3. Same—Fellow Servants—í:ard Master-and Fireman of Switch Engine.</p> <p>A yard master in charge of switch yards of a railroad, who is subordinate to a general yard master, who is in turn subordinate to a train master, and he to a superintendent, is not a vice principal, but a fellow servant, in his relation to other employés engaged in switching in the yard.</p> <p>4. Same—Rule Governing.</p> <p>In the absence of a governing statute of the state, where an injury was received, a federal court will apply the general rule of such courts in determining who are fellow servants, regardless of where the contract of employment was made.</p> <p>5. Same—Action for Injury—Pleading.</p> <p>Where, in an action by an employé against a railroad company to recover for an injury, plaintiff alleged'that the order resulting in the injury was given by defendant’s superintendent or train dispatcher, which allegation was denied, it was competent for defendant to prove, under such denial, that the order was give