Royer v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Citations
- 259 Pa. 438
- 103 A. 276
- 1918 Pa. LEXIS 430
Syllabus
<p>.Negligence — Railroads—Locomotive whistle — Deafening of fireman on locomotive on next track — Interstate commerce — Federal Employer’s Liability Act — Fellow-servant rule — Failure to warn of blowing of whistle — Common knowledge — Evidence—Custom io wcurn — Admissibility.'</p> <p>1. When a locomotive fireman, employed by a railroad company on an engine engaged in drawing a train in interstate commerce, is injured, the Federal law governs and the fellow-servant rule is not applicable.</p> <p>2. Where in an action by a locomotive fireman against a railroad company, engaged in interstate commerce, by which plaintiff had been employed, to recover for injuries to his hearing caused by the blowing of the whistle of another locomotive standing upon an adjoining track and within ten feet of plaintiff, it appeared that suddenly and without warning two loud shrill blasts were emitted from the whistle, and that plaintiff immediately felt a pain in his ear, and thereafter became totally deaf in such ear, but where there was no evidence to justify a finding that the experience or knowledge which an engineer might be expected to have should have warned the engineer who blew the whistle that he should first give notice to the plaintiff, the jury were not warranted in finding that defendant or its servants had reason to anticipate that the blowing of the whistle was likely to affect plaintiff injuriously, and a verdict for the plaintiff could not be sustained.</p> <p>3. The effect upon bystanders of the blowing of a locomotive whistle, under such circumstances, is hardly a matter of common knowledge, and it must therefore be shown by evidence.</p> <p>4. Where in such case it appeared that plaintiff offered to prove that it was customary to give warning to persons working within a distance of ten or fifteen feet of the whistle of an engine standing in the yard, before the whistle was blown, and that it was the general custom for those in charge of such an engine to look about
Judges: Mestrezat, Moschziskbr, Potter, Stewart, Walling
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.