Campbell v. Southern Pacific Railway Co.

Master and Servant—Railroads—Assumption op Risk—Instructions.—In an action against a railway company by an employee to recover for personal injuries, instructions on the law of assumption of risks are properly refused where the pleadings and evidence raise no issue of assumed risk.

Id.—Negligence op Master—Burden op Proof to Show.—The burden is on an employee, suing his employer for personal injuries, affirmatively to prove negligence on the part of the employer.

Id.—Presumption op Negligence prom Happening op Accident.—A presumption of negligence on the part of an employer does not arise from the fact of injury to an employee in the course of his employment.

Id.—Roof Striking Employee on Railway Car.—In this action by an employee against a railway company for injuries sustained, while descending from a passing ear, by being struck by a roof alleged to have been negligently maintained too near the track, the evidence is sufficient to warrant the jury in finding against the defendant’s negligence.

Id.—Contributory Negligence—Erroneous Instructions.—If no negligence of the defendant is shown in an action by an employee for personal injuries, erroneous instructions in reference to contributory negligence are not prejudicial to the plaintiff.

Id.—Assumption op Risk—Inaccurate Instructions.—An inaccurate instruction on the law of assumption of risks is not prejudicial to an employee, in his action against his employer for personal injuries, where the pleadings and evidence raise no issue of assumed risk.