Reed v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, & St. Louis Railway Co.

Citations

• 243 Pa. 562
• 90 A. 359
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 665

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Bridge accident — Disregard of “Blow” order — Contributory negligence — Implied invitee — Duty of reasonable care — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries, the question of defendant’s negligence is for the jury where there is evidence that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was employed by a construction company engaged in building a concrete bridge for defendant company; that plaintiff was required to see that cement flowed freely through a chute to forms below the trestle bridge, over which defendant’s trains were running; that while plaintiff could have inspected the chute from below, it was necessary for him to stand on the trestle in order to do the work effectively; that the use of the trestle by the plaintiff and other employees of the construction company had been customary with the knowledge and in the presence of the inspectors and master carpenter of the defendant company; that during the construction of the bridge defendant company issued a “slow” order requiring trains to run at the rate of four miles per hour, and the employees of the construction company understood that such order was for their protection, and which was disobeyed in consequence of which plaintiff, while standing on the trestle, was struck by a train running at a speed of from fifteen to twenty miles an hour, and suffered the injuries complained of.</p> <p>2. In such case where it appeared that plaintiff was employed to do and was doing at the time of the accident a part of the work required of his employers in the execution of their contract with the defendant company, and that while he might have performed that service in another indirect and less effective way by going beneath the trestle, the work could he more advantageously done by standing on the trestle, there was evidence of an implied invitation on the part of the defendant for the plaintiff to use the bridge for such purpose;