Seymour Dwight Thompson.

Commentaries on the law of negligence in all relations online

. (page 142 of 165)
Online LibrarySeymour Dwight ThompsonCommentaries on the law of negligence in all relations → online text (page 142 of 165)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Digitized by



[2d Ed.

§5016. Doctrine that Trainmen upon Different Bailway-Trains
are Fellow Servants of Each Other. — According to the prevailing view,
the trainmen operating different trains upon the same road, being
servants of the same company, are fellow servants in the sense that if
a man while engaged on one train is injured through the negligence of
a man engaged in operating another train, the railway company will
not be liable. 47 %

Dobbin v. Richmond Ac. R. Co., 81
N. C. 446]; Louisville Ac. R. Co.
v. Collins, 2 Duv. (Ky.) Il4; Green
v. Louisville Ac. R. Co., 94 Ky. 169.
47 Wheatley v. Philadelphia Ac.
R. Co., 1 Marv. (Del.) 305; s. c.
30 Atl. Rep. 660 (brakeman on one
train, fireman on another train);
Terre Haute Ac. R. Co. v. Leeper,
60 111. App. 194; Illinois 6c. R. Co.
v. Swisher, 74 111. App. 164; s. c.
aff'd sub nom. Swisher v: Illinois
Ac. R. Co., 182 111. 533; s. c. 55 N. B.
Rep.' 555 (fireman on a passenger-
train and brakeman on a freight-
train who turned the switch the
wrong way — no recovery) ; Klees v.
Chicago Ac. R. Co., 68 111. App. 244
(engineer of a switching-crew un-
der temporary employment, and en-
gineer and brakeman of a road-
train) ; Elgin ,Ac. R. Co. v. Malaney,
59 111. App. 114 (crews of different
switching-engines frequently meet-
ing in the discharge of their duty,
running on the same track, and
brought into frequent association,
are fellow servants, even under the
con-association doctrine) ; Ohio Ac.
R. Co. v. Robb, 36 111. App. 627; s. c.
aff'd, 52 111. App. Ill, 643; 60 111.
App. 200 (two railroad engineers
in the same grade of service run-
ning over the same track); North
Chicago St. R. Co. v. Dudgeon, 69
111. App. 57 (conductor on a cable
car is a fellow servant of a grip-
man and another conductor upon
another car in the name train) ;
Chicago Ac. R. Co. v. Thompson, 99
111. App. 277 (fireman on one train
and an engineer in charge of an-
other train and engine) ; Columbus
Ac. R. Co. v. Arnold, 21 Ind. 174;
s. c. 99 Am. Dec. 615; Louisville Ac.
R. Co. v. Robinson, 4 Bush (Ky.)
507; Wonder v. Baltimore Ac. R.
Co., 32 Md. 411; s. c. 3 Am. Rep.
143; Peaslee v. Fitchburg R. Co.,
152 Mass. 155; .s. c. 25 N. E. Rep.
71 (fireman on one engine and en-

gineer on another engine) ; Jarman
v. Chicago Ac. R. Co., 98 Mich. 135;
s. c. 57 N. W. Rep. 32 (fireman on
one train injured by negligence of
conductor of a passing freight-train
in Improperly loading a car); Bn-
right v. Toledo Ac. R. Co., 93 Mich.
409; s. c. 53 N. W. Rep. 536 (en-
gineer on a freight-train and con-
ductor of another train); Chicago
Ac. R. Co. v: Doyle, 60 Miss. 977
(engineer on one train is a fellow
servant with engineer on another
train); McMaster v. Illinois Ac. R.
Co., 65 Miss. 264; s. c. 7 Am. St.
Rep. 653; 4 South. Rep. 59 (brake-
man of freight-train and conductor
and trainmen of a passenger-train
are fellow servants); Relyea v.
Kansas City Ac. R. Co., 112 Mo. 86;
s. c. 18 L. R. A. 817; 53 Am. A Eng.
R. Cas. 578; 20 S. W. Rep. 480
(brakeman on a freight-train and
fireman on another train on the
same section of the road, where
both are under orders of the same
train-dispatcher) ; Schaub v. Han-
nibal Ac. R. Co., 106 Mo. 74; s. c.

16 S. W. Rep. 924; Warner v. Erie
R. Co., 39 N. Y. 468; Pleasants v.
Raleigh Ac. R. Co., 121 N. C. 492;
s. c. 28 S. E. Rep. 267; 61 Am. St.
Rep. 674 (engineer on one freight-
train is a fellow servant with a con-
ductor on another freight-train) ;
Pittsburg Ac. R. Co. v. Devinney,

17 Ohio St. 197 (brakeman on one
train, conductor and engineer on
another) ; Cole v. Northern Ac. R.
Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 573 (fireman on
one train and engineer and fireman
on another train) ; Jenkins v. Rich-
mond Ac. R. Co., 39 S. C. 507; s. c.

18 S. E. Rep. 182; 39 Am. St. Rep.
750 (employes upon a train are fel-
low servants of a fireman upon a
following train, with respect to the
placing of torpedoes or other sig-
nals for the purpose of stopping the
latter train upon the former break-
ing in two),' Hicks v. Southern R.


Digitized by


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

§ 5017. Doctrine, that Hallway Trainmen on Different Trains are
Not Fellow Servants of Each Other. — A few courts, on the other hand,
adhere to the con-association doctrine already considered, 48 holding

Co., 63 S. C. 559; s. c. 41 S. E. Rep.
753; rev'g on rehearing s. c. 38 S.
E. Rep. 725, 866 (conductor on
a train is a fellow servant of
a flagman on another train, and
a vice-principal as to a flagman
on his own train); Sanner v.
Atchison Ac. R. Co-, 17 Tex. Civ.
App. 337; s. c. 43 S. W. Rep. 533.
(foreman of switching-engine is a
fellow servant of a brakeman of a
freight-train which is being made
up by the switching-engine, at
common law) ; Norfolk &c. R. Co.
v. Donnelly, 88 Va. 853; s. c. 14
S. E. Rep. 692; Norfolk Ac. R.
Co. v. Lindamood (Va.), 14 S. E.
Rep. 694 (no off. rep.) (company
not liable for the death of an en-
gineer while he was running on
schedule time and was entitled to
the right of way against all trains
coming from the opposite direction,
caused by a collision due to the fact
that the engineer and conductor on
a train running in the latter direc-
tion misunderstood or disregarded
their right-of-way orders) ; Norfolk
&c. R. Co. v. Houchins, 95 Va. 398;
s. c. 3 Va. L. Reg. 807; 8 Am. 6
Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 616; 64 Am.
St. Rep. 791; 28 S. E. Rep. 578;
MacCarthy v. Whitcomb, 110 Wis.
113; s. c. 85 N. W. Rep. 707 (con-
ductor and brakeman on a freight-
train and fireman on another
train); Kerlin v. Chicago &"c. R.
Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 185 (baggage-mas-
ter on one train is a fellow servant
of the conductor having charge of
the movements of another train) ;
Howard v. Denver Ac. R. Co., 26
Fed. Rep. 837 (fireman on passen-
ger-train is a fellow servant of en-
gineer of another train) ; Van
Avery v. Union Pac. R. Co., 35 Fed.
Rep. 40 (locomotive-engineers upon
different trains) ; Randall v. Balti-
more &c. R. Co., 109 U. S. 478
(brakeman on one train, while
using a switch, is a fellow servant
of an engine-man of another train) ;
Beaumont v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,
109 Fed. Rep. 532; s. c. 48 C. C. A.

529 (engineer on an extra train
and conductor of a work-train);
Maher v. Union Pac. &c. R. Co., 106
Fed. Rep. 309; s. c. 45 O. C. A. 301
(fireman on a passenger-train and
engineer and conductor on a freight-
train); Thorn v. Pittard, 62 Fed.
Rep. 232;- s. c. 10 C. C. A. 352 (train-
men on railroad-train and men op-
erating a hand-car); Northern &c
R. Co. v. Poirier, 67 Fed. Rep. 881
(conductor of a train with which
a following train collides is the
vice-principal of the railroad com-
pany in respect to a brakeman upon
the first train, but the conductor of
the second train is a fellow servant
with such brakeman); St Louis
6c. R. Co. v. Needham, 63 Fed. Rep.
107; s. c. 25 L. R. A. 833; 11 C. C.
A. 56 (conductor of a construction-
train negligently leaving open a
switch, injuring a fireman on a
passenger-train); Northern Ac. R.
Co. v. Mase, 63 Fed. Rep. 114; a c
11 C. C. A. 63 (fireman on one train
injured by the negligence of a con-
ductor on another train in leaving
open a switch) ; Becker v. Balti-
more Ac. R. Co., 57 Fed. Rep. 188
(brakeman on freight-train and
conductor and conductor of a pas-
senger-train) ; Oakes v. Mase, 165
U. S. 363; s. c. 41 L. ed. 746; 17
Sup. Ct. Rep. 345 (engineer on one
train and conductor of another
train); Baltimore &c. R. Co. v.
Reynolds, 50 Fed. Rep. 728; s. c. 6
U. S. App. 75; 1 C. C. A. 636; 17 L.
R. A. 190 (conductor and engineer
on one train, and brakeman on an-
other) ; Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. An-
drews, 50 Fed. Rep. 728 (engineer
on one train and brakeman on an-
other) ; Baltimore Trust Ac. Co. v.
Atlantic Traction Co., 69 Fed. Rep*
358 (conductor of an electric car is
a fellow servant of a conductor on
another car on the same line of
street and suburban railway);
Hutchinson v. York &c. R. Co., 5
Exch. 343; s. c. 6 Eng. R. Cas. 580;
14 Jur. 837; 19 L. J. (Exch.) 296.
" Ante, § 4971.


Digitized by



[2d Ed.

that trainmen engaged upon different trains of the same company
upon the same road are not fellow servants of each other. 49

§ 6018. Injuries which have been Ascribed to the Negligence of
Fellow Servants in Eailway Service. — The following injuries have
been ascribed to the negligence of fellow servants in railway service :
— An injury to an experienced section-hand engaged with others in re-
laying a spur-track, during the progress of which it became necessary
to move cars, and who, while climbing at the command of the section-

° Chicago &c. R. Co. v. House, 172
111. 601; s. c. 50 N. E. Rep. 1.51;
aff'g a. c. 71» 111. App. 147 (crew of
freight-train not fellow servants of
crew of passenger-train); Louis-
ville &c. R. Co. v. Rains, 15 Ky. L.
Rep. 423; s. c. 23 S. W. Rep. 505
(no off. rep.) (engineer in charge
of one train not a fellow servant
with trainmen of another train.);
Goodman v. Delaware &c. Canal Co.,
167 Pa. St. 332; s. c. 31 Atl. Rep.
670 (train-master putting an irregu-
lar train upon the track is not act-
ing as a fellow servant of a fire-
man of another train) ; Freeman
v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 107 Tenn.
340; s. c. 64 S. W. Rep. 1 (member
of a bridge-crew killed while load-
ing timbers upon a flat-car, not a
fellow servant of the engineer and
conductor of the train which
backed into it); Galveston &c. R.
Co. v. Worthy (Tex. Civ. App.), 32
S. W. Rep. 557 (no off. rep.) (en-
gineer on a through freight-train is
not, as matter of law, a fellow serv-
ant with the engineer and brake-
man of a local freight-train); San
Antonio 6c. R. Co. v. Harding, 11
Tex. Civ. App. 497; s. c. 3 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 389; 33 S. W.
Rep. 373 (engineer running a train
on a railroad under the supervision
of the train-master at one place, not
a fellow servant with a yard-en-
gineer in charge of a switch-engine
under the supervision of the yard-
master at another place, under a
statute defining fellow servants as
those who are in a common service,
working together to a common pur-
pose) ; Houston Ac. R. Co. v. Pat-
terson, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 255; s. c.
48 S. W. Rep. 747 (brakeman and
an engineer belonging to different
crews operating different trains on
the same division of a railroad are
not fellow servants) ; Northern

Pac. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 1 Wash. 599;
s. c. 21 Pac. Rep. 32 (conductor and
engineer of a "wild" train are not
fellow servants of a laborer on a
gravel-train); Northern Ac. R. Co.
v. Mase, 63 Fed. Rep. 114; s. c. 11
C. C. A. 63 (under a statute making
the master liable for an injury to
an employe 1 caused by the negli-
gence of his superior, whether sub-
ject to his orders or not, — the con-
clusion being that a train-conductor
is the superior of a fireman on an-
other train, and not his fellow serv-
ant); Ragsdale v. Northern 6c. R.
Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 383 (fireman on
one train injured in a collision
through the negligence of the con-
ductor and engineer of another
train, who are held to represent the
master in the control of the train
— can recover) ; Central Trust Co.
v. Wabash Ac. R. Co., 34 Fed. Rep.
616 (expressman and baggageman
of a passenger-train not a fellow
servant with conductor and en-
gineer of a freight-train, who are
held to represent the master) ; Mad-
den v. Chesapeake &c. R. Co., 28
W. Va. 610; s. c. 57 Am. Rep. 695
(a conductor is not regarded as a
fellow servant of an engineer on a
different train, or of a telegraph-
operator under whose direction
conductor runs his trains, but as a
vice-principal) ; Daniel v. Chesa-
peake &c. R. Co., 36 W. Va. 397;
s. c. 16 L. R. A. 383; 32 Am. St.
Rep. 870 (brakeman on one train
and conductor on another train not
fellow servants, but conductor a
vice-principal); Au v. New York
&c. R. Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 72 (con-'
ductor on one train, and brakeman
on another); Ragsdale v.' Northern
&c. R. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 383 (con-
ductor on one train and fireman on


Digitized by


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

boss upon one of the cars to set the brakes, was injured by the act of
the other hands in violently bumping the car with another ; 50 an injuTy
in consequence of a collision with an empty car which ran down an
incline because the brake was not properly set by another employS ; 51
an injury produced by the failure of another employe* to observe the
rules and regulations of the company in regard to the running of
trains; 52 an injury to a brakeinan employed on a logging-railroad,
caused by a train being derailed by a log which fell from the train
because a stake intended to hold the log in place was carelessly inserted
in its socket by himself or by a fellow trainman ; 6S an injury to a rail-
way employ^ caused by the negligence of a coemploye in running a
train with great speed, contrary to the orders of the company, over a
short-cut track which was seldom used, and then only for a particular
purpose ; 54 the death of an engineer, caused by the negligence of the
servants in charge of another train in failing to observe the general
rules of the company in connection with a special order, and in run-
ning past a station instead of waiting on a side-track for such engi-
neer's train ; 5B an injury to a construction-hand, caused by the negli-
gence of his fellow servants in allowing a rail to drop which they were
loading on a car ; 58 an injury to a brakeman, on a car moved by gravi-
tation down an incline, caused by the negligent loading of a stone by
his fellow servants, there being no defect in the car or track; 57 an
injury to a section-hand, caused by his being jostled by another sec-
tion-hand while in the act of unloading rails, so that a rail fell on his

M Gavigan v. Lake Shore Ac. R.
Co., 110 Mich. 71; s. c. 3 Det. Leg.
N. 296; 5 Am. A Eng. R. Cas. (N.
S.) 523; 67 N. W. Rep. 1097.

"Hoover v. Carbon County
Elec. R. Co., 191 Pa. St. 146; s. c.
43 Atl. Rep. 74.

"Niles v. New York Ac. R. Co.,
14 App. Div. (N. Y.) 58; s. c. 43
N. Y. Supp. 751. Further as to in-
juries from the failure of the co-
employes to observe rules, see
Drake v. New York Ac. R. Co., 80
Hun (N. Y.) 490; s. c. 62 N. Y. St.
Rep. 592; 30 N. Y. Supp. 671;
Bryant v. New York Ac. R. Co.,
80 Hun (N. Y.) 164; s. c. 62 N.
Y. St. Rep. 670; 30 N. Y. Supp.
737; Evansville Ac. R. Co. v. To-
hill, 143 Ind. 49; s. c. 41 N. E. Rep.
709; 42 N. E. Rep. 352; Illinois
Cent. R. Co. v. Woolley, 77 Miss.
927; s. c. 28 South. Rep. 26 (failure
to block a car according to the
rules of a company, so that it ran

down a siding and collided with a
train, causing the death of the en-
gineer) ; Lundquist v. Duluth St
R. Co., 65 Minn. 387; s. c. 4 Am.
A Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 506; 67 N.
W. Rep. 1006 (negligence of the
motorman in disobeying the rule of
the company requiring those in
charge of its cars to give timely
warning of their approach to a
crew of track-repairers).

"Conger v. Flint Ac. R. Co., 86
Mich. 76; s. c. 48 N. W. Rep. 695.

"Stetler v. Chicago Ac. R. Co.,
46 Wis. 497.

"Evansville Ac. R. Co. v. Tohill,
143 Ind. 49; s. c. 41 N. E. Rep. 709;
42 N. E. Rep. 352.

M Coyne v. Union Ac. R. Co., 133
U. S. 370; s. c. 33 L. ed. 651: 7
Rail. A Corp. L. J. 434; 10 Sup. Ct
Rep. 382.

"Sweeney v. Paige, 64 Hun (N.
Y.) 172; s. c. 46 N. Y. St Rep. 163;
18 N. Y. Supp. 890.


Digitized by



foot; 58 an injury to a section-master, caused by the act of a coemploy6
who was turning the crank of a hand-car, and who was caught in it
and hurled against the injured employ^ ; BQ an injury to a section-hand
engaged with others in loading ties from a pile alongside the track
upon a hand-car, caused by the act of one of his coemploy6s, who,
without waiting for the usual signal, threw his end of the tie first; 60
an injury sustained by an employe while attempting to board a pay-
car when it was on a moving turn-table, he being pushed off by a f el- '
low employ6 who was alighting therefrom; 81 an injury to a switch-
man from the failure of the yard-foreman to transmit from the switch-
man to the engineer the proper order as to the movement of the en-
gine, — the transmission of such orders being regarded as a precaution
adopted by him and his fellow laborers for their mutual protection in
the execution of the work; 62 an injury to a railway employ^, caused
by the negligence of his coemploy6 in unhooking a cable from a car
before sending it down an incline, or in sending it down -the incline
with a slack cable and an unset brake, resulting in the breaking of
the rope, the cable being sufficient if used in a proper manner; 88 an
injury to a railway employ6 upon a htad-car, caused by the act of a
fellow employ^ in starting the car while the hand of the injured serv-
ant was in a dangerous position, where no one knew of its position,
and the car was started without the direction of the foreman; 64 an
injury to a railway employ6, caused by the neglect of a fellow servant
to adjust the hooks by which the side of a car was kept in place while
the car was in motion, by reason of which failure the car "dumped"
while in motion ; 65 an injury to a brakeman, the proximate cause of
which was the negligent movement of the train by a fellow servant
while the brakeman was attempting to make the coupling; 66 an injury
to a brakeman, who knew that a pile of lumber was near the track,
but who, nevertheless, attempted to jump upon a train while moving
past the pile, — the act of piling the lumber being regarded as the act
of a fellow servant; 67 an injury to a car-coupler, caused by the pre-

u International &c. R. Co. v. Tar- 112 Mich. 616; s. c. 4 Det. Leg. N.

ver, 72 Tex. 308; s. c. 11 S. W. Rep. 126; 71 N. W. Rep. 156.

1043. •* Hamilton v. Chicago Ac. R. Co.,

"Kenney v. Central R. Co., 61 93 Iowa 46; s. c. 61 N. W. Rep. 415.

Ga. 590. "Soderman v. Kemp, 145 N. Y.

"Timm v. Michigan &c. R. Co., 427; s. c. 65 N. Y. St. Rep. 352; 40

98 Mich. 226; s. c. 57 N. W. Rep. N. B. Rep. 212.

116. "Norfolk &c. R. Co. v. Brown, 91

•St Louis &c. R. Co. v. Fergu- Va. 668; s. c. 22 S. E. Rep. 496 (no

son, 65 Ark. 126; s. c. 44 S. W. Rep. recovery on the ground that the

1123; 10 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. coupling was defective).

S.) 634. "GafTney v. New York Ac. R. Co.,

68 Garland v. Missouri &c. R. Co., 15 R. I. 456; s. c. 4 N. Eng. Rep.

85 Mo. App. 579. 33; 7 Atl. Rep. 284 (doubtful de-

"Henning v. Globe Foundry Co., cision).


Digitized by LjOOQLC

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


mature drawing of a coupling-pin by a "pin-puller" ; 68 an injury to a
railway employe* while putting a hose on an engine-tender, caused by
the falling of loose coal dislodged by another employ^ standing on the
tender to receive the hose ; 69 an injury to a railway employe*, caused by
the falling of a pile of lumber, due to the negligence of himself and
of his coemployes ; 70 and injuries to railway servants under the cir-
cumstances of the cases cited in the margin. 71

Article II. Trainmen and Employes Not Working on Trains.


5020. Train-despatcher not a fellow
servant with other em-

6021. When a train-despatcher Is

deemed a fellow servant of
other railway employes.

6022. Whether a telegraph-operator

is a fellow servant with

5023. Brakeman and house-painter.

5024. Bridge foreman and engineer.


5025. Bridge-builder or bridge-re-

pairer and trainmen.

5026. Baggage-master or baggage-

man and other railway serv-

5027. Engine-wiper and trainmen

in charge of standing cars.

5028. Railroad-company porter em-

ployed at station, and ex-

§ 5020. Train-Despatcher Not a Fellow Servant with Other Em-
ployes. — The servant of a railway company, whether called telegraph-
operator, train-despatcher, master mechanic, division superintendent,
or by whatever name, who is charged with the duty of sending out
trains and prescribing their movements, the stations at which they
shall stop, the length of time for which they shall remain at each stop-
ping place, and, generally, the schedule of time upon which they shall

"Central R. Co. v. Keegan, 82
Fed. Rep. 174; s. c. 51 U. S. App.

"Weisel v. Eastern R. Co., 79
Minn. 245; s. c. 82 N. W. Rep. 576.

"Langlois v. Maine Ac. R. Co.,
84 Me. 161; s. c. 24 Atl. Rep. 804.

"Rose v. Gulf Ac. R. Co. (Tex.),

17 S. W. Rep. 789 (no off. rep.);
Evans v. Sabine Ac. R. Co. (Tex.),

18 S. W. Rep. 493 (no off. rep.);
Litchfield v. Buffalo &c. R. Co., 73
App. Div. (N. Y.) 1; s. c. 76 N. Y.
Supp. 80 (injury to employe while
engaged in excavating under
track); Herbert v. Delaware Ac.
Canal Co., 62 Hun (N. Y.) 618; s.
c. 41 N. Y. St. Rep. 860; 16 N. Y.
Supp. 561; Keys v. Pennsylvania
Co. (Pa.), 1 Cent. Rep. 893 (no off.


rep.); Burke v. Syracuse Ac. R. Co..
69 Hun (N. Y.) 21; s. c. 52 N. Y.
St Rep. 813; 23 N. Y. Supp. 458;
Coffman v. Louisville Ac. R. Co.,
13 Ky. L. Rep. 886; s. c. 18 S. W.
Rep.. 1012 (no off. rep.). For a case
where negligence in making up a
train of dirt-cars on a trestle, of
cars without brakes, was the negli-
gence of a fellow servant, and
where the negligence of a superin-
tendent who had supervised the
work of building the trestle, in fail-
ing to have a bumper constructed
at the end of the trestle, was the
negligence of a fellow servant of the
plaintiff, — see Maryland Clay Co.
v. Goodnow, 95 Md. 331; s. c. 51
Atl. Rep. 292.

Digitized by



run, is deemed not to be a fellow, servant of trainmen, 1 " or of track-
repairers,* or of other servants of the same company who may be in-
jured by his negligence. 8

§ 5021. When a Train-Despatcher is Deemed a Fellow Servant of
Other Eailway Employes. — In a few jurisdictions only the status of

'Little Rock &c. R. Co. v. Barry, gineer, caused by the instructions
68 Ark. 198; s. c. 23 S. W. Rep. and the lack of full instructions
1097; 25 L. R. A. 386 (not a fel- of a train-despatcher); Booth v.
low servant of a fireman on a Boston &c. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 38; s.
passenger-train); McKune y. Call- c. 67 N. Y. 593; Little Miami R. Co.
fornia &c. R. Co., 66 Cal. 302; Dar- v. Stevens, 20 Ohio 415; Cleveland
rigan v. New York &c. R. Co., 52 ftc. R. Co. v. Keary, 3 Ohio St 201;
Conn. 285; s. c. 52 Am. Rep. 590; Lewis v. Seifert, 116 Pa. St 628;
Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Young, 26 s. c. 11 Atl.'Rep. 514; 20 W. N. C.
111. App. 115; Chicago ftc. R. Co. (Pa.) 145; Hogan v. Missouri Ac.
v. McLallen, 84 111. 109; Louisville R. Co., 88 Tex. 679; s. c. 32 S. W.
ftc. R. Co. v. Heck, 151' Ind. 292; Rep. 1035 (engineer is not a fel-
s. c. 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) low servant of the train-despatcher
382; 50 N. E. Rep. 988 (although and telegraph-operator giving or-
he issues his orders in the name of ders for the movement of his
division superintendents) [overrul- train); Galveston &c. R. Co. v.
ing Robertson v. Terre Haute &c. Arispe, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 611; s. o.
R. Co., 78 Ind. 77; s. c. 41 Am. 23 S. W. Rep. 928; rehearing de-
Rep. 5621; Missouri &c. R. Co. v. nied, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 617; s. c.
Elliott, 2 Ind. Ter. 407; s. c. 51 24 S. W. Rep. 33 (division super-
S. W. Rep. 1067; 14 Am. ft Eng. intendent and train-despatcher not
R. Cas. (N. S.) 587 (fireman not a a fellow servant of an employ 6
fellow servant of a train-despatch- upon a work-train) ; Phillips v.
er) ; Hannibal &c. R. Co. v. Kanaley, Chicago &c. R. Co., 64 Wis. 475;
39 Kan. 1; McLeod v. Ginther, 80 Cincinnati &c. R. Co. v. Clark, 16
Ky. 399; Lasky v. Canadian &c. R. U. S. App. 17; s. c. 57 Fed. Rep.
Co., 83 Me. 461; Smith v. Wabash 125; 6 C. C. A. 281; Chicago &c. R.
&c. R. Co., 92 Me. 359; Hunn v. Co. v. Ross, 112 U. S. 377; s. c. 28
Michigan ftc. R. Co., 78 Mich. 513; L. ed. 787; Oregon Short Line &c.
s. c. 44' N. W. Rep. 502; 41 Am. & R. Co. v. Frost, 44 U. S. App. 606;
Eng. R. Cas. 452; 7 L. R. A. 500; s. c. 74 Fed. Rep. 965; 21 C. C. A.
Smith v. Wabash Ac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 186; Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Camp,
359; Hankins v. New York &c. R. 31 U. S. App. 213; s. c. 65 Fed. Rep.
Co., 142 N. Y. 416; s. c. 25 L. R. A. 952; 13 C. C. A. 233; Crew v. St.

Online LibrarySeymour Dwight ThompsonCommentaries on the law of negligence in all relations → online text (page 142 of 165)