Richmond & Danville Railroad v. Rush

Citations

• 71 Miss. 987

Syllabus

<p>1. Sailkoads. Injury to employe. Contributory negligence.</p> <p>A rule of a railroad company requiring coupling and uncoupling of cars to be done by means of a stick, and forbidding employes to go between cars when a locomotive is attached, is reasonable and valid, and, for injury sustained through its violation, an employe who knew the rule, and contracted with reference to it, cannot recover.</p> <p>2. Same. Rule of company. Conflicting order of conductor.</p> <p>Although a brakeman, in uncoupling cars in violation of such rule, was acting under the order of the conductor, who had “ the right to control or direct his services,” within the meaning of ¿193, constitution 1890, he cannot recover, since he was under no obligation to obey an order to violate a rule binding on all employes, including the conductor.</p> <p>3. Same. Injury to employe. Violation of rule. Instruction.</p> <p>An instruction in such case that the company is liable if the conductor ordered plaintiff to go between the cars to uncouple, having first taken from him his coupling-stick, and, without knowing that he had come out, negligently signaled the engineer to move, thus causing the injury, is erroneous, as authorizing a recovery a-egardless of the said rule of the company.</p> <p>4. Same. Rule of company. Power of conductor to abrogate.</p> <p>It is error to instruct that the company is liable, notwithstanding said rule, if the conductor knew of, and acquiesced in, plaintiff’s violation thereof, and occasioned the injury by negligently signaling the train to start. Granting that the conductor is the superior officer of the brakeman, he cannot dispense with such general rule.</p>