International & Great Northern Railway Co. v. Kernan

1. Master and Servant — Duty of Master. — A railway company is bound to furnish, safe machinery and appliances for use by its employes in operating its road. If ordinary and reasonable care is not exercised by the company to do this it would be responsible for injuries to its servants caused by such neglect. 2. Same—Fellow Servant—Negligence.—The railway company can not relieve itself of this duty by charging its servants with its performance. The neglect of the servant to whom such duty is entrusted is the neglect of the company. 3. Car Inspector.—Negligence on part of a car inspector is chargeable to the company, on complaint of a brakeman injured by such neglect. 4. Same.—That a defective car belonged to another road is immaterial. The railway company is bound to the same care touching all cars used upon its line. 5. Charge.—It is proper to refuse a requested charge repeating matter contained in the general charge of the court.

Appeal from Smith. Tried below before Hon. Felix J. McCord. The statement of the nature and result of the case by appellant is accepted by the appellee and is here given. Appellee brought this suit against appellant in the District Court of Smith County on the 1st day of December, 1888, alleging in substance that about the 9th day of October, 1888, he was in the employ of the appellant and engaged as brakeman on appellant’s railroad, and on said date was engaged with other employes of appellant in switching, coupling, and uncoupling cars on appellant’s railroad and yards in San Antonio. That a certain car upon appellant’s road was defective, worn, and out of repair; that the spring at the end of the drawhead of said car was wanting in force and strength and allowed said drawhead to be pushed to such an extent under the car as to allow the coupling pin to come in contact with and strike the wood upon the end of the car with such force and frequency as to have imbedded itself into the wood of said car; that said drawhead and the iron and wood about said drawhead were worn, defective, and out of repair; that said defects were such as could and would have been discovered by appellant’s car inspector by the use of ordinary care and diligence. That appellee, not knowing of said defects and dangerous condition, did on said date attempt to couple said car with another car; that no extraordinary force was used by parties operating the engine in bringing cars together, and while placing pin in drawhead of said car in the usual and careful manner, on account of said defects in said car he was seriously and permanently injured; that by the pin upon which his hand was placed coming in contact with the wood upon the end of said car his third and fourth fingers were bruised and severed entirely from his right hand; that on account of said injuries he suffered great bodily pain and mental anguish, and they will incapacitate him to a great extent for labor, thereby depriving him to a great extent of earning a livelihood. That appellee is a young man, and that from said injuries he will be inconvenienced and disfigured for the balance of his life, etc. By reason of all of which appellee prays for $15,000 actual damages. Appellant answered (1) by general denial; (2) that appellee’s injuries were caused by his own negligence and carelessness and could have been avoided by the exercise of proper care on his part; (3) that the car alleged by plaintiff to be defective was not one of defendant’s cars, but belonged to another road connected with defendant’s road, and had just been run on to defendant’s road, and had been inspected by defendant’s inspector and found in good condition on the night of the alleged accident; (4) that appellant had competent inspectors in its employ at said time and place whose instructions and duty it was to inspect all cars in use by appellant and see that they were sound and in good repair. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $1250. Defendant appealed.