Stewart v. Central Railroad

Citations

• 235 Pa. 311
• 84 A. 38
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 544

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Master and servant — Bralceman—Falling in trestle — Contributory negligence — Question for jv/ry.</p> <p>1. In an action by a brakeman against a railroad company, his employer, to recover for personal injuries, tbe case is for the jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained, where tbe evidence tends to show that immediately before the accident tbe plaintiff in tbe performance of bis duty descended from tbe train as it stopped, and after tbe train bad started again, ran along a cinder track to make tbe mount, when be tripped and fell on an unplanked trestle which began where tbe cinder path ended, and tbe character of which was unknown to plaintiff.</p> <p>2. In such a case the trial judge could not rule as a matter of law that tbe unplanked condition of tbe trestle was an assumed risk of tbe plaintiff’s employment, where the evidence shows that tbe unplanked trestle was, “not only unusual,” but that its condition made it “more dangerous in itself than tbe ordinary one” so situated.</p> <p>3. While 'an employee is deemed to assume tbe risks ordinarily and reasonably connected with bis employment, and is presumed to have notice of those which are obvious, tbe employer is fixed with tbe duty to maintain instruments, appliances and conditions which do not expose his employee to dangers not ordinarily or reasonably incident to the employment; the latter has the right to presume that his employer has performed this duty, and he does not assume risks growing out of unusually dangerous conditions not to be reasonably anticipated by him.</p> <p>4. Where the measure of duty is a standard of ordinary and reasonable care, the degree' of which varies according to the circumstances, and where the facts are disputed or there is any reasonable doubt as to the inferences to be drawn from them, the issues must be submitted to the jury.</p>