In this case,
held that the court below correctly
charged the jury as to the law governing the duty of the master to
furnish a safe place, machinery and tools, and the duty of the
employee to take reasonable care of himself, and the judgment in
favor of the employee affirmed.
Defendant in error, plaintiff below, was a brakeman in the
employ of the railroad company, plaintiff in error, and on February
22, 1904, was injured while in the performance of his duties as
brakeman. He brought suit for $25,000 in the District Court of El
Paso County, Texas, charging negligence on the part of the company.
Subsequently he amended his petition by adding the allegation that
the car in getting onto which he was injured was used in interstate
shipment, and that the cause of the injury was a lack of handholds
and grabirons required by the Safety Appliance Statute of the
United States. Thereupon, the railroad company removed the case to
the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of
Texas. A trial was held in April, 1906, which resulted in a
judgment for $6,000. This judgment was affirmed by the court of
appeals, and from that court brought here on error.
Page 211 U. S. 610
MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The circumstances of the injury, generally speaking, were these:
the freight train on which plaintiff was acting as brakeman was
directed to stop at Osborne and pick up a water car. This water car
was a flat car with a tank on it -- a temporary water car. It had
an iron handrail on each side and upright posts, or standards,
through which, near the top, the rail extended, on each end of
which was supposed to be a nut to hold the rail in position. After
the water car and another car on the siding had been coupled to the
train, the conductor gave the signal to pull out, and, as it drew
near the switch, the water car passed the plaintiff, then standing
on the ground. He put his foot on the journal box, reached up, and
caught hold of the rail near the rear end of the car. It slipped
out of the standard, and he fell and was injured. It appears that
there was no nut at that end of the handrail, and the weight of the
plaintiff pulled the rail out from the standard. One witness, who
examined the car just before as well as after the injury, said that
the end of
Page 211 U. S. 611
the handrail, where the nut ought to have been, was rusty, as
though none had been there for some time. Another witness supported
him as to the rusty condition of the end of the rail immediately
after the accident. There was testimony that plaintiff followed a
common way of getting onto such a water car. Indeed, on an open,
moving car, a handrail running through standards on the side, and
within easy reach, would naturally suggest doing just what the
plaintiff did. It certainly could not be declared, as a matter of
law, negligence. On the part of the defendant, there was testimony
that this car had a handhold on the standard at the front end of
the car such as is required by the statute of the United States,
that the company had an experienced inspector who stated that he
had inspected the car the day before the injury, found one nut
gone, and replaced it, and that the car otherwise was in good
condition.
This outline of the testimony is all that is sufficient,
although there was quite a volume on both sides of the matters
referred to. The court charged the jury as to the law governing the
case both in respect to the duty of the master to furnish a safe
place, machinery, and tools, and the duty resting upon the employee
of taking reasonable care of himself, following in the instructions
the rules so often stated by this Court.
Hough v. Railway
Company, 100 U. S. 213;
Northern Pacific Railroad v. Herbert, 116 U.
S. 642;
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Baugh,
149 U. S. 368,
149 U. S. 386;
Union Pacific Railway v. Daniels, 152 U.
S. 684;
Northern Pacific Railroad v. Babcock,
154 U. S. 190.
Without reviewing the various instructions in detail, it is enough
to say that they clearly presented the matters in dispute and
stated the law applicable thereto correctly. The verdict of the
jury, approved as it was by the trial and appellate courts, settles
the disputed questions of fact.
Under these circumstances, it does not seem necessary to notice
in detail the several objections pointed out in the very elaborate
argument of counsel for the railroad company. A careful examination
discloses no error in the proceedings. The
Page 211 U. S. 612
plaintiff was injured, and the questions of his care and the
company's negligence were fully and fairly submitted to the
jury.
The judgment of the court of appeals is
Affirmed.
