R. & D. R. R. v. Burnett

Citations

• 88 Va. 538
• 14 S.E. 372
• 1892 Va. LEXIS 4

Syllabus

<p>1. Employer and Employees — Safe appliances. — It is the duty of employer to furnish and maintain reasonably safe and suitable appliances and not ,to expose employees to risks beyond those incident to the employment, and in contemplation at the time of entering therein.</p> <p>2. Idem — Declaration.—Where declaration alleges that it was the duty of defendants to have kept the brakes, etc. “ in sufficient repair ”;</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>It is not demurrable as charging a higher duty than the law imposes. Goodman v. R. R. Co., 81 Va. 580.</p> <p>3. Idem — Instructions—Careful inspection. — In action by brakeman injured by reason of defective brake on car in defendant’s yard, this instruction given on plaintiff’s motion: “If the jury believe that the injury was caused by a defect in the chain on the brake of defendant’s car, without any fault on plaintiff’s part, and that the defect was known to the defendant, or might have been known by a careful inspection of said chain and brake, then they should find for plaintiff; ”</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>Proper.</p> <p>4. Idem — Two instructions of same tenor. — Where instruction consists of two clauses — one of same tenor and effects as an instruction already given, the other not sustained by any evidence;</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>Refusal to give it, no error.</p> <p>5. Hew Trial — Evidence certified — Section 3484- — Where plaintiff’s evidence is all clear and consistent to the point that the injury resulted from “ the , defective brake,” and defendant’s evidence is in conflict therewith, and defendant moves that the verdict be set aside as contrary to the evidence, which is certified, and defendant excepts to the overruling of the motion ;</p> <p>Held:</p> <p>This court is precluded from comparing and weighing the conflicting testimony, and must affirm the ruling.</p>