Shuster v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad

Citations

• 22 Del. 4
• 6 Penne. 4
• 62 A. 689
• 1906 Del. LEXIS 12

Syllabus

<p>Writ of Error—Action for Damages—Death of Husband—Negligence—Proximate Cause—Fellow Servant—Vice Principal— Injured or Crippled car—Notice of to Servants— Rules—Instruction by Court below to find for Defendant—Judgment below Affirmed.</p> <p>1. It appeared from the testimony that an injured or crippled car was to be moved from the line of the road to the Edge Moor yard of the defendant for inspection, etc. The superintendent of the division telegraphed to the conductor of the freight train, “move this car from Sea-ford to Edge Moor. Take it on next to your cabin car.” The conductor testified that he understood this to mean that he should place said car next ahead of the cabin car. The accident was probably caused by so placing the car. Held, that if the conductor misinterpreted the telegram of the superintendent, and placed the injured car before, when he should have placed it behind the cabin car, and coupled them together by means of the chain, instead of the usual and uninjured coupling on the good end of the injured car, he was guilty of negligence, which materially contributed to the fatal accident.</p> <p>2. Where the yard master of the defendant directed the conductor of the freight train to run his train upon a certain track, and informed him that it was clear, when there was standing upon it a car or cars with which the train was liable to collide, such direction was negligence on the part of the yard master, and constituted the proximate cause of the accident.</p> <p>3. The yard master, the brakeman and the conductor were all fellow-servants of the deceased car inspector, and if his death was the result of the negligence of any or all of these persons, the defendant would not be liable. But the superintendent was not a fellow-servant, but a vice principal, and if the death was caused by Jhis negligence the defendant would be liable.</p> <p>4. It is within the province of the Court to construe written instruments, and it is their duty, with the aid of th