Pittsburgh, S. & N. R. Co. v. Lamphere

Citations

• 137 F. 20
• 69 C.C.A. 542
• 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4535

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant—Injuries to Servant—Railroads—Actions—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action for injuries to a brakeman by striking a low trestle, with which he was not familiar, as his train was passing under it, an expert in railroad management was entitled to testify what, in his opinion, good railroading required with respect to the erection of telltales on each side of overhead bridges.</p> <p>8. Same—Instructions.</p> <p>Where, in an action for injuries to a brakeman by striking a low overhead trestle, the issue was whether defendant had been guilty of negligence in not providing a reasonably safe place and safe appliances for plaintiff’s use, instructions that it was the duty of the railroad to use due care to provide a reasonably safe place and safe appliances for the use of the workmen, and if it failed so to do, and injury directly resulted therefrom, the railroad company was guilty of negligence; that the servant was entitled to assume that the master had used due diligence in providing suitable appliances, except that where the defect was known to the servant, or so patent as to be readily observed by him, he thereby assumed the hazard; and that, if the servant was not informed by the master of dangers not incident to a careful performance of the work, and which are known to the master, and such servant remains in ignorance and suffers in consequence, the employer is guilty of negligence—were not objectionable as abstract propositions not applicable to the facts.</p> <p>3. Same—Knowledge oe Danger—Assumed Risk.</p> <p>In an action for injuries to a brakeman by striking a low trestle, evidence as to plaintiff’s knowledge or means of knowledge thereof held not such as to require a finding that he assumed the risk as a matter of law.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Assumption of risk incident to employment, see note to .38 0. Q. A. 314.1 -</p>