R. & D. R. R. v. George

Citations

• 88 Va. 223
• 13 S.E. 429
• 1891 Va. LEXIS 21

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligent Injuries—Employees—Machinery.— It is no longer an open question that employer is bound to use ordinary care in supplying and and maintaining adequately safe instrumentalities for the performance of the work required, and if he fail to do so, he is as liable to an employee as to a stranger.</p> <p>2. Idem—Case at bar.—Plaintiff, a brakeman in defendant company’s employ, attempted to get down from a car on front end of train, to uncouple engine.. The bottom rung of the ear-ladder was missing, and while feeling for it in the dark with his foot, the engineer, without awaiting the usual signal, suddenly backed the engine against plaintiff and injured him. The bumper on end of car was broken off so that the tender came close to it. Plaintiff was not aware the bumper was broken. The train was made up under the supervision of the regular car inspector:</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>The defective condition of the car was the proximate cause of the injury, and the defendant was liable.</p> <p>3. Idem—Fellow-servants.—The doctrine oí fellow-servants has no application to the above case.</p> <p>4. Appellate Practice—Excessive damages—New trial—Rule.—If no objection appeal- by bill of exceptions taken to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, to have been made in the trial court, to 'excessiveness of damages, it is too late to make such objection here.</p>