Yazoo & M. V. R. v. Wright

Citations

• 207 F. 281
• 125 C.C.A. 25
• 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1624

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant (§ 28G*)— Railroads — Negligence — Question for Jury.</p> <p>AVhere a railroad engineer was killed in a collision between his engine and a ear, which in violation of the rules of the company had been left on a side track so near the passing track as not to allow clearance, the company cannot be held free from negligence as matter of law.</p> <p>[IOd. Note.-—1’or other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 1001, 10WS, 1008, 1010-1015, 1017-1033, 1036-1042, 1044, 1046-1050; Dec. Dig. § 286.*]</p> <p>2. Master and Servant (§ 217*)—Master’s Liability fob Injury to Servant—-“Assumption of Risk.”</p> <p>To rentier the doctrine of “assumption of risk” applicable, the servant must have known, or have been chargeable with knowledge, of the danger which caused his injury, and voluntarily exposed himself to it.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 574-COO ; Dee. Dig. § 217.*</p> <p>Dor other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 589-591; vol. 8, pp. 7584, 7585.]</p> <p>3. Master and Servant (§ 217*)—Master’s Liability for Injury to Servant—Assumption of Risk.</p> <p>An engineer was taking his train slowly along a lead track into railroad yards, with cars standing alongside on the left on a switch track leading into his own a short distance ahead. Being unable to determine from Ms side of the cab, he asked the fireman, whose duty it was under the rules of the company to keep a lookout on the left side, if the gtanding cars would clear, and was told they would. Later the fireman said they would not, but it was then too late to avoid, collision, in which the engineer was killed. The fireman testified, without contradiction, that the car lacked but a few inches of clearing, and he thought it would clear until they were close to it. The rules of the company required all cars left on side tracks to stand clear of all other tracks. Held,, that there was no evidence which rendered the doctrine of assumption