Fulford v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

Negligence — Railroad—Bridge—Engineer—Obvious danger. A locomotive engineer cannot recover damages from the railroad company which employs him, for injuries resulting from his head coming in contact with the side of a bridge, while he had his head out of the cab window to watch his train, where it appears that the engineer had frequently passed the bridge, although on narrower engines, and that the danger from protruding the head too far was obvious.

Appeal, No. 86, Jan. Term, 1898, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Bradford Co., Sept.'Term, 1896, No. 625, refusing to take off nonsuit. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Searle, P. J., of the 34th judicial district, specially presiding. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff was injured on the night of August 8,1894, while employed as an engineer in running a freight train from Sayre to Falling Springs. After passing a cut at East To wanda he looked out of the cab window of his engine to see if his train was together, and while so engaged he was struck on the left side of his head immediately over his ear by the edge of a plate on defendant’s bridge over Laning creek, and seriously injured. Plaintiff had prior to the accident made about fifty trips during six weeks, as engineer, over the bridge where the accident occurred, but on engines narrower in width than that which he was running on the night of August 8, 1894. The evidence did not show the exact clearance between the cab of the engine in question, and the side of the bridge. One witness stated that it was less than a foot, another that it was more than a foot. The appellee stated in its paper-book that the clearance was in point of fact twenty-two inches. There was evidence that the usage of the company was to-have a clearance of four feet between the tracks and the structures along the right of way, and that the company knew from the report of a roadmaster some years before that there was a-less distance at the point of the accident. The evidence for the plaintiff tended, on the whole, to show that the danger of protruding the head too far as the train approached the bridge, was obvious. The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off. Error assigned was in refusing to take off nonsuit.