Seymour Dwight Thompson.

Commentaries on the law of negligence in all relations online

. (page 141 of 165)
Online LibrarySeymour Dwight ThompsonCommentaries on the law of negligence in all relations → online text (page 141 of 165)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

of their presence. It was held that
both the C. Co. and the engineer
were liable for the death of the
switchman, and that the L. Co. was
not liable: Martin v. Louisville Ac.
R. Co., 95 Ky. 612; s. c. 16 Ky. L.
Rep. 150; 26 S. W. Rep. 801. Con-
struction of an agreement for joint
operation between two railroad
companies with respect to an ap-
portionment of the damages paid to
injured workmen: Louisville Ac.
R. Co. v. Chesapeake . Ac. R. Co.,
107 Ky. 191; s. c. 21 Ky. L. Rep.
875; 53 S. W. Rep. 277. Non-liabil-
ity of a railroad company for in-
juries to one of its own employes,
caused by the negligence of another
company running its trains over
the track of the employing com-
pany, subject to the rules of the
employing company, where the em-
ploying company is itself free from
negligence: Atwood v. Chicago ftc.
R. Co., 72 Fed. Rep. 447.

"Svenson v. Pacific Mail S. S.
Co., 57 N. Y. 108; aflTg s. c. 1 Jones
& Sp. (N. Y.) 277.

Digitized by



represented an interest different from that represented by the servants
of the latter. 44 So, the servant of a contractor engaged in repairing a
railroad bridge has been held not a fellow servant with th6 servants of
the company in charge of a passing train. 45 So, the servant of a con-
tractor engaged in removing the cargo of a ship to the cars of a rail-
way company is not a fellow servant with the company's trainmen, —
the court deeming the fact that he was not in the pay of the company
a conclusive test. 40 So, a switch-tender employed by a railroad com-
pany on a portion of its track on which it permits another company to
run its trains is not a fellow servant with the servants of the latter
company ; so that if one of such servants is injured by his negligence,
the company by which the switch-tender is employed must pay dam-
ages. 47 A similar view has been taken by the English Court of Appeal.
Two stations belonging respectively to the defendants and another rail-
way company abutted one upon another, and were approached by par-
allel lines of rails. The movement of trains was regulated by signal-
men whose duty was common to both stations. The plaintiffs lius-
band was one of these signalmen; he was engaged and paid by the
latter company, and wore their uniform, but his duty was to attend to
the defendants' trains as well as those of his employer. An engine^of
the defendants was upon the lines of the 6ther company, and this sig-
nalman directed the engine-driver to go on to the defendants' lines,
which he did, but negligently ran over and killed the signalman, who
was then looking at a train coming from another direction. These
two servants were held not to be engaged in a common employment. 48

§ 5009. Cases Presenting a Divergent View. — It has, however,
been held in Massachusetts, but on grounds which are not very clear,
that the servants of a contractor of a city for blasting rocks, employed
at the construction of a sewer, with servants of the city, are, as to such
servants, fellow servants ; so that if injured by their negligence, they
cannot recover damages of the city. 49 This view is supported by an
English case, where it was held that the servants of a sub-contractor
were fellow servants of the general contractor, where all were engaged
together on the same work, — the court taking the view that the sub-

u Abraham v. Reynolds, 5 Hurl. «• Burke v. Norwich &c. R. Co., 34

& N. 142; s. c. 6 Jur. (N. S.) 63; 8 Conn. 474.

Week Rep. 181. * T Smiths. New York Ac. R. Co.,

• Young v. New York &c. R. Co., 19 N. Y. 127.

30 Barb. (N. Y.) 229. Compare "Swalnson v. Northeastern R.

Woodley v. Metropolitan District Co., 3 Exch. Div. 341.

R. Co., 2 Exch. Div. 384 (dissenting "Johnson v. Boston, 118 Mass.

opinions of Mellish and Baggallay, 114.
L. JJ.).

VOL. 4 THOMP. NEG. — 65 1025

Digitized by LjOOQLC

4 -Thomp. Neg.] the fellow-sebvant doctrine.

contractor, and all his servants, must be considered as being, for the
purpose of the rule, the servants of the principal contractor. 6 * A
case in Illinois, is somewhat similar. A contractor was under an en-
gagement to furnish wood to a railway company. The company was
to furnish a locomotive and train to deliver it where needed on the
road, together with an engineer, fireman, conductor, and other neces-
sary trainmen. The contractor had charge of the train, and the men
on it had to obey his orders. It was held that the servants of the rail-
way company and those of the contractor were fellow servants within
the meaning of the rule. 51

§ 5010. Other Cases Presenting a Divergent View. — On somewhat
similar ground, if A., proposing to erect a building, engages for that
purpose a master mason and a master rigger, each furnishing for his
separate part of the work his own tools and men, and the servant of
the master mason is injured by the negligence of a servant of the mas-
ter rigger, he cannot recover damages of the proprietor, although all
of the men thus engaged received their pay from the proprietor. "The
alleged injury was caused by the breaking of the rope furnished by
the master rigger. The rope broke while hoisting a beam, either by
reason of its own imperfection, or the unskillfulness with which it
was used by the rigger. The rigger was either the servant of the de-
fendant, or a contractor having exclusive control of the work he had
contracted to do. If he was a contractor, the defendant would not be
liable for any injury caused by his negligence, whether arising from
the selection of his tackle or the manner of using it. 82 If not a con-
tractor, but a servant, then he and those employed under him to do
the hoisting were fellow servants with the master mason and the men
employed as masons under him, of whom the plaintiff's intestate was

"Wiggett v. Fox, 11 Exch. 832; husband. While at work at the

s. c. 2 Jur. (N. S.) 955; 25 L. J. bottom of the tower, the defend-

(Exch.) 188. In this case, the de- ants' men who were at the top, neg-

fendants, having contracted with ligently let fall % an instrument

the Crystal Palace Company to which struck him on the head and

erect a tower, manufactured the caused his death. It was held that

materials, and made sub-contracts the subcontractor and his workmen

with several persons to do, by were servants of the defendants, en-

"piece-work," particular portions of gaged in one common employment

the hoisting and fixing of the ma- with their other servants, and, con-

terlals, the scaffolding and tools be- sequently, that the defendants were

ing provided by the defendants, not liable under 9 & 10 Vict, c. 93,

The workmen employed by the sub- for the injury caused by their negli-

contractors were paid weekly by gence: Wiggett v. Fox, suprtL

the defendants, according to the "Illinois Ac. R. Co. y. Cox, 21

time they worked, an account of 111. 20.

which was kept by the defendants' M Citing Connors v. Hennessey,

foreman. One of these subcon- 112 Mass. 96.
tractors employed the plaintiff's


Digitized by LjOOQLC


one. They, together with the carpenters, were engaged in the com-
mon employment of erecting and completing the structure, under the
general direction of the defendant's agent. 58 All the master mechanics
thus employed were to furnish the men, tools and tackle necessary to
do the work in their respective departments. A master thus employing
servants to do a certain work, and to furnish the tools and other ap-
pliances necessary for the prosecution of the work, is responsible to a
fellow servant only for care in the selection of the men thus employed.
He is not responsible for a defective ax, rope, or trowel so furnished,
which, in the hands and under the control of one of his servants,
injures a fellow servant, any more than he is responsible to his servant
for the careless and negligent manner in which such tool or appliance
is used by a fellow servant. Suppose a carpenter and plumber are
engaged in the common employment of making repairs, each bringing,
as is usual in such cases; his own tools : the master would not be liable
for an injury to the carpenter caused by a defect in the furnace of the
plumber. Two woodmen are employed to cut down trees, and they
both bring their own axes : it could not be contended, if one is injured
by a defect in the ax of the other, that the master would be responsible.
The workman takes the risks of the employment he engages in, which
include the results of negligence on the part of others engaged in the
same service ; and where all furnish their own tools, and are engaged
in a common employment, the workman takes the risk of the negli-
gence of his fellow workman in selecting and caring for his tools, as
well as in the use of them." 54

§ 5011. Influence of the Con-Association Doctrine upon this Ques-
tion. — The con-association doctrine, elsewhere referred to, 55 which
obtains in one or. two jurisdictions, may have a possible influence
upon this question. Thus, it has been held that the switching-crews
in the employ of different railroad companies, are not to be regarded
as fellow servants, though using the same track for their trains, —
their duties not being such as to bring them into habitual con-associa-
tion, such as would enable them to exercise a mutual influence over
each other promotive of proper caution ; 50 but another reason would be
that they are servants of different masters.

"Citing Johnson v. Boston, 118 * Ante, § 4971.

Mass. 114. "Tierney v. Chicago Ac. R. Co.,

** Harkins v. Standard Sugar Re- 92 111. App. 631.
finery, 122 Mass. 400.


Digitized by LjOOQLC

4 Thomp. Neg.] the fellow-servant doctrine.


















General Statements and Illustrations, §§ 5014-5018.
Trainmen and Employes Not Working on Trains,

§§ 5020-5028.
Conductor, §§ 5030-5037.
Engineer, §§ 5039-5058.
Switchmen, Yardmen, Eoundhouse-men, etc.,

§§ 5062-5085.
Inspectors and Repairers of Cars and Locomotives,

§§ 5089-5098.
Section-master, Section-foreman Section-boss, Section-
9 men, §§ 5101-5112.
Art. VIII. Station-Agents, §§ 5115-5117.
Art. IX. Master Mechanic, Division Superintendent, Roadmas-

ter, etc., §§ 5119-5123.
Art. X. Various Other Illustrations, Alphabetically Arranged,

§§ 5125-5147.

Article I. General Statements and Illustrations.

Section Section

5014. What is common employment' 5017. Doctrine that railway train-

in railway service. men on different trains are

5015. General statements as to who not fellow servants of each

are deemed fellow servants other.

in railway service. 5018. Injuries which have been as*

5016. Doctrine that trainmen upon cribed to the negligence of

different railway-trains are fellow servants in railway

fellow servants of each service.


§ 5014. What is Common Employment in Railway Service. — Ap-
plying the general rule to railway service, it has been held that "all
who are engaged in accomplishing the ultimate end in view, — that is,
the running of the road, — must be regarded as engaged in the same

Digitized by LjOOQLC


general business within the rule." 1 In another case it is said : "Prima
facie, all servants of a common master, employed in running, operat-
ing, and rendering service with a train of cars, are fellow servants. If
there are facts which show that this relation does not really exist be-
tween all of such servants, the burden of showing such facts is on him
who seeks to avail himself of the absence or non-existence of such
relation." 2 It is not necessary that the servant injured, in order to
exempt the master from liability within the rule, should have been
engaged in the running operations of the road. "There are many
cases where the immediate object on which the one servant is em-
ployed is very dissimilar from that on which the other is employed,
and yet the risk of injury from the negligence of the one is so much
a natural and necessary consequence of the employment which the
other accepts, that it must be ^included in the risks which are to be
considered in his wages. * * * Whenever the employment is
such as necessarily to bring the person accepting it into contact with
the traffic of the line of railway, risk of injury from the carelessness of
those managing that traffic is one of the risks necessarily and naturally
incident to such an employment, and within the rule." 8 The English
and Irish courts hold that the servants of the railway corporation
whose duty it is to construct the roadway and maintain it in proper
repair are fellow servants with those engaged in the running of its
trains, and with those who are being transported over it to and from
their labor while in the employ of the company. 4 Some American
courts have assented to the same doctrine. 5 But it is believed that the
weight of authority in this country is decidedly the other way. 6 The
following persons have been held to be fellow servants within the rule :
-•-Servants engaged in operating different trains on the same road, so
that if a collision takes place between two trains, none of the servants
injured can, as a general rule, recover damages of the company; 7 a

1 Hard v. Vermont Ac. R. Co., 32 •McDermott v. Pacific R. Co., 30

Vt. 473; O'Connell v. Baltimore Ac. Mo. 115.

R. Co., 20 Md. 212; Wonder v. Bal- • Chicago Ac. R. Co. v. Swett, 45

timore Ac. R. Co., 32 Md. 411; Chi- 111. 197; Chicago Ac. R. Co. v. Keefe,

cago Ac. R. Co.,v. Keefe, 47 111. 108; 47 111. 108; Chicago Ac. R. Co. v.

St Louis Ac. R. Co. v. Britz, 72 111. Gregory, 58 111. 272; Toledo Ac. R.

256. Co. v. Conroy, 68 111. 560; Houston

*McGowan v. St. Louis Ac. R. Co., Ac. R. Co. v. Dunham, 49 Tex. 181;

61 Mo. 528, 532. Snow v. Housatonic Ac. R. Co., 8

a Blackburn, X, in Morgan v. Vale Allen (Mass.) 441; post, §§ 5104,

of Neath R. Co., 5 Best A S. 570, 5105.

580; s. c. 33 L. J. (Q. B.) 260; T Hutchinson v. York Ac. R. Co.,

quoted with approval by Erie, C. J. 5 Exch. 343; s. c. 6 Eng. R. Cas.

(the other Judges concurring), in 580; 14 Jur. 837; 19 L. J. (Exch.)

the Exchequer Chamber, L. R. 1 Q. 296; Louisville Ac. R. Co. v. Robin-

B. 154; s. c. 5 Best A S. 736. son, 4 Bush (Ky.) 507; Pittsburgh

* Conway v. Belfast Ac. R. Co., I. Ac. R. Co. v. Devinney, 17 Ohio St.

R. 9 C. L. 498. 197.


Digitized by LjOOQLC

4 Thomp. Neg.] the fellow-servant , doctrine.

conductor of a "dump" or gravel-train, and a common laborer there-
on ; 8 a brakeman on a train, and the mechanics in the repair-shops ; a
brakeman, and the inspector of machinery and rolling-stock ; 9 a con-
ductor of a construction-train, and one of the laborers employed on it,
in the absence of proof that the conductor was in fact a vice-princi-
pal; 10 a carpenter, or other employ6 of a railway company, and the
men in charge of the train by which he is carried to or from his work,
in pursuance of his contract of service ; 1X an employe, on a train going
to his work, and a signal-man of the company ;" a conductor travelling
orf another train to his place of service ; 18 a fireman, and the master
machinist of the company ; 14 an engineer, brakeman, and shoveller ; 15
a coal-miner employed by a mining company, who has been detailed,
with many other miners, to work at repairing a break in a railway
belonging to the company, and the conductor of a construction-train
on such railway, on which train the person injured was working; 10 a
switch-tender and a locomotive-engineer; 17 a brakeman and another
brakeman, together with a conductor of a freight-train; 18 the general
traffic-manager, and a "milesman" employed under the orders of the
"ganger"; 10 a carpenter at work for a railway company, and the
servants of the company in charge of a turn-table ; 20 a conductor and
a brakeman employed on the same train ; 21 a brakeman on a freight-
train, and an engineer on a passenger-train of the same company ; 28 a
repairer of cars at a particular station, and an engineer in charge of a
switch-engine at the same station, although each received his orders

•O'Connell v. Baltimore Ac. R.
Co., 20 Md. 212.

•Wonder v. Baltimore &c. R. Co.,
32 Md. 418.

"McGowan v. St. Louis &c. R.
Co., 61 Mo. 528.

' u Seaver v. Boston Ac. R. Co., 14
Gray (Mass.) 466. On substantial-
ly the same facts, so held in Gill-
shannon v. Stony Brook R. Co., 10
Cush. (Mass.) 228; Morgan v. Vale
of Neath R. Co., 5 Best & S. 736;
s. c. L. R. 1 Q. B. 149; 35 L. J. (Q.
B.) 33; 13 L. T. (N. S.) 564; aff'g s.
c. 5 Best & S. 570; 10 Jur. (N. S.)
1074; 33 L. J. (Q. B.) 260; 13 Week.
Rep. 1031; Tunney v. Midland R.
Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 291; s. c. 2 Jur.
(N. S.) 691. Contra, O'Donnell v.
Allegheny Valley R. Co., 59 Pa. St.

12 Moran v. New York &c. R. Co.,
3 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 770; s. c.
67 Barb. (N. Y.) 96.

"Manville v. Cleveland &c. R.
Co., 11 Ohio St. 417.

• 1030

"Columbus Ac. R. Co. v. Arnold,
31 Ind. 174 [overruling Fitzpatrick
y. New Albany &c. R. Co., 7 Ind.

" St. Louis Ac. R. Co. v. Britz, 72
111. 256.

" Cumberland Coal Ac. Co. v. Scal-
ly, 27 Md. 589.

"Farwell v. Boston &c. R. Co., 4
Mete. (Mass.) 49; s. c. 2 Thomp.
Neg. (1st ed.), p. 924.

"Hayes v. Western R. Corp., 3
Cush. (Mass.) 270.

"Conwajr v. Belfast &e. R. Co.,
I. R. 9 C. L. 498.

" Morgan v. Vale of Neath R. Co.,
L. R. 1 Q. B. 149; s. c. 5 Best & S.
736; 35 L. J. (Q. B.) 23; 13 L. T. (N.
S.) 564; 14 Week. Rep. 144; affg
s. c. 5 Best & S. 570; 10 Jur. (N. S.)
1074; 33 L. J. (Q. B.) 260; 13 Week.
Rep. 1031.

21 Dow v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 8
Kan. 642.

"Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Robin-
son, 4 Bush (Ky.) 507.

Digitized by



from a different foreman; 23 the servants of a person who had con-
tracted to deliver'wood to a railway company, and the engineer, fire-
man, and conductor furnished by the railway company, in pursuance
of the terms of the contract, who were associated together on the same
train ; 24 the engineer and shovellers on a gravel-train ; fi5 a servant em-
ployed at a particular station, whose duties (among others) consisted
in coupling and uncoupling trains, and the engineer and conductor of
any train that might come along and need his services in switching
cars ; 28 a brakeman, and a section-boss whose duty it was to tend the
switch at a particular station ; 27 a brakeman, and the engineer on the
same train; 28 a guard on a train on an English railway, and the
"ganger," whose duty it is to inspect the track and see that such tree-
nails are renewed as are decayed ; 29 a station-master having charge of
the freight-trains on a certain division of the road, and the engineer
of such a train; 80 a car-repairer, and the head-brakeman and y$rd-
master at a particular yard; 31 the general superintendent of a rail-
way, the supervisor of the road and engineer, a section-master, and a
common laborer ; 32 the laborers on a gravel or construction-train, and
the conductor or engineer of the same ; 83 a railway conductor, and an
engineer on the same train ; 34 one of a gang of track-repairers, and the
foreman of the gang; 85 a brakeman on one train, and the conductor or
engineer^on another train belonging to the same company ; 86 a track-
repairer, and the fireman or engineer of a passing train ; 37 an inspector
of the track, and the servants of the company in charge of passing
trains; 88 a laborer employed in getting out ballast, and a track-layer

"Chicago Ac. R. Co. v. Murphy, . "Besel v. New York Ac. R. Co.,

53 111. 336. And on similar facts, 70 N. Y. 171; rev'g s. c. 9 Hun (N.

Valtez v. Ohio Ac. R. Co., 85 111. 500. Y.) 457.

"Illinois Ac. R. Co. v. Cox, 21 "Mobile Ac. R. Co. v. Smith, 59

111. 20. Ala. 245; s. c. 6 Repr. 264.

"Ohio Ac. R. Co. v. Tindall, 13 "Ryan v. Cumberland Valley Ac.

Ind. 366; distinguishing Fitzpat- R. Co., 23 Pa. St 384; Chicago Ac.

rick v. New Albany Ac. R. Co., 7 R. Co. v. Keefe, 47 111. 108.

Ind. 436. M Ragsdale v. Memphis Ac. R. Co.,

"Wilson v. Madison Ac. R. Co., 59 Tenn. 426.

18 Ind. 226. "Weger v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,

* Slattery v. Toledo Ac. R. Co., 23 55 Pa. St. 460.

Ind. 81. "Pittsburgh Ac. R. Co. v. Devin-

28 Summerhay8 v. Kansas Pac. R. ney, 17 Ohio St. 197.

Co., 2 Colo. 484; St. Louis Ac. R. "Whaalan v. Mad River Ac. R.

Co. v. Britz, 72 111. 256. Co., 8 Ohio St. 249; Boldt v. New

"Waller v. South-Eastern R. Co., York Ac. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 432; Ohio

2 Hurl. A Colt. 102; s. c. 7 Jur. (N. Ac. R. Co. v. Collarn, 73 Ind. 261;

S.) 501; 32 L. J. (Exch.) 205; 11 s. c. 8 Cent. L. J. 12; 7 Repr. 143;

Week. Rep. 731; 8 L. T. (N. S.) 38 Am. Rep. 134.

325. "Coon v. Syracuse Ac. R. Co., 5

"Evans v. Atlantic Ac. R. Co., 62 N. Y. 492.
Mo. 49.


Digitized by LjOOQIC

4 Thomp. Xeg.] the fellow-servant doctrine.

who had laid a temporary track, on which such laborer was at work;**
a brakeman, and the conductor and engineer of the same train. 40

§ 5015. General Statements as to Who are Deemed Fellow Serv-
ants in Railway Service. — Under the principles of the common law,
a railway trainman is deemed a fellow servant of the other trainmen
where all are engaged in the same general business, — such as the
engineer and fireman. 41 This includes employes attached to trains,
but not engaged in operating them. 4 * The rule is the same under
statutes embodying the principles of the common law. 48 The fact that
one servant has the power of control over the other does not, in some
jurisdictions, alter the rule. 44 In other jurisdictions, the "superior-
servant" doctrine prevails to the extent of making the railway com-
pany answerable for an injury inflicted upon an inferior servant by a
superior servant placed in command over the injured servant. 46 In
other jurisdictions the sound rale which is applied is that the master
is liable only where the "superior servant" acts in neglect or in viola-
tion of a duty imposed by law upon the master and by the master en-
trusted to the superior servant. 48

"Lovegrove v. London Ac. R. Co.,
16 C. B. (N. S.) 669.

40 Sherman v. Rochester 6c. R.
Co., 17 N. Y. 153.

41 Dillon v. Union Ac. R. Co., 3
Dill. (U. SO 319 (engineer); Jen-
kins v. Richmond Ac. R. Co., 39 S.
C. 507 (fireman); Pease v. Chicago
Ac. R. Co., 61 Wis. 163; s. c. 20 N.
W. Rep. 508 (brakeman); Hoover
v. Beach Creek R. Co., 154 Pa. St
362 (brakeman) ; Sherman v. Roch-
ester Ac. R. Co., 15 Barb. (N. Y.)
574; s. c. aif'd, 17 N. Y. 153 (brake-
man) ; La Pierre v. Chicago Ac. R.
Co,. 99 Mich. 212 (brakeman); Rob-
inson v. Houston Ac. R. Co., 46 Tex.
540 (any employ^) ; Wilson v. Madi-
son Ac. R. Co., 18 Ind. 226 (any em-
ploys ).

42 St. Louis Ac. R. Co. v. Shackel-
ford, 42 Ark. 417; Gillshannon v.
Stony Brook R. Corp., 10 Cush.
(Mass.) 228; Sullivan v. Toledo Ac.
R. Co., 58 Ind. 26; Cassidy v. Maine
Ac. R.. Co., 76 Me. 488; Howland v.
Milwaukee Ac. R. Co., 54 Wis. 226;
Ryan v. Cumberland Ac. R. Co., 23
Pa. St. 384; Corona v. Galveston
Ac. R. Co. (Tex.), 17 S. W. Rep.
384 (no off. rep.) ; Heine v. Chicago
Ac. R. Co., 58 Wis. 525; s. c. 17 N.
W. Rep. 420.

48 Brown v. Central Ac. R. Co., 72


Cal. 523 (brakeman); Congrave v.
Southern &c. R. Co., 88 Cal. 360;
Chicago Ac. R. Co. v. Rosp, 112 U.
S. 377; Moore v. Jones, 15 Tex. Civ.
App. 391 (engineer).

44 Heine v. Chicago Ac. R. Co., 58
Wis. 525; Thayer v. St Louis Ac.
R. Co., 22 Ind. 26; Louisville Ac.
R. Co. v. Southwick, 16 Ind. App.
486; Robinson v. Houston Ac. R.
Co., 46 Tex. 540.

45 Chicago Ac. R. Co. v. Snyder,
117 111. 376; Miller v. Missouri Ac.
R. Co., 109 Mo. 350; Dick v. Indi-
anapolis Ac. R. Co., 38 Ohio St. 389;
Lake Shore &c. R. Co. v. Knittal, 33
Ohio St. 468; Lake Shore Ac. R. Co.
v. Spangler, 44 Ohio St 471; Cleve-
land Ac. R. Co. v. Keary, 3 Ohio St
201; Nebraska Ac. R. Co. v. Lund-
strom, 16 Neb. 254; Burlington Ac
R. Co. v. Crockett, 19 Neb. 138;
Clark v. hughes, 51 Neb. 780; Nash-
ville Ac. Co. v. Wheless, 10 Lea
(Tenn.) 741; Illinois Ac. R. Co. v.
Spence, 93 Tenn. 173; East Tennes-
see Ac. R. Co. v. Collins, 85 Tenn.

46 Coal Creek Min. Co. v. Davis,
90 Tenn. 711; Louisville Ac. R. Co.
v. Lahr, 86 Tenn. 335; Cowles v.
Richmond Ac. R. Co., 84 N. C. 309;
Patton v. Western Ac. R. Co.. 96
N. C. 455 [in effect disapproving

Online LibrarySeymour Dwight ThompsonCommentaries on the law of negligence in all relations → online text (page 141 of 165)