Philad. & R. R. v. Huber

Citations

• 128 Pa. 63
• 18 A. 334
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 770

Syllabus

<p>1. A railroad company owes to its employees the duty of exercising reasonable care in regularly inspecting ears, brakes and oth,er appliances used by the latter, so as to ascertain if such appliances remain in a suitable and safe condition, and to remedy any defects that may be discovered.</p> <p>(a) A railroad brakeman, in assisting to shift a train, jumped upon a car just as the train was about to move, and proceeded to perform liis duties thereon. While so engaged he fell upon the track, was run over and killed. In an action brought against the railroad company to recover damages for his death, there was evidence showing:</p> <p>(b) That the brake upon the car was defective and dangerous, and had been negligently permitted by the company to remain so; that the defect was discoverable upon an attempt to use it, though its dangerous character might not become manifest under a moderate pressure, but no prior knowledge of it on the brakeman’s part was shown.</p> <p>(a) That the brakeman had but two or three minutes in which to become acquainted with the character and condition of the brake and determine whether or not he would use it or abstain from using it as unsafe, during which time he was necessarily occupied in uncoupling the cars and calculating and regulating their movement.</p> <p>(cl) There was no direct evidence that the defective brake caused the brakeman’s fall, or that he was in the act of braking when he fell; but he was seen pulling on the lever just before his fall, and witnesses testified that such a fall might easily result from the slipping of the lever in an attempt to work the brake.</p> <p>2. Upon these facts, the case was properly submitted to the jury with instructions to determine whether the defect in the brake was the cause of the brakeman’s fall, and if so, whether he knew at the time of using it of its unsafe condition, and used it with and notwithstanding such knowledge.</p>