Martin v. California Central Railway Co.

California Supreme Court Apr 15, 1892 No. No. 14052Published

Before: Garoutte

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an employee's knowledge of dangerous machinery does not automatically constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law, but that the second jury instruction regarding the employee's duty of care was erroneous and required reversal.

Issues

Whether an employee's knowledge of dangerous equipment bars recovery for injuries as a matter of law.
Whether the jury instructions regarding the employee's duty of care and the employer's negligence were correct.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The question of negligence is for the jury to decide, under all the evidence in the case, even if it appears that said deceased, Martin, knew the character, kind, and dangerous nature of the said coupling.”

Synopsis

Negligence — Defective Cab Couplings — Death of Brakeman — Knowledge of Danger — Province of Jury — Instruction.—In an action against a railroad company for damages for the death of an employee who was injured while attempting to couple cars, on the ground that the railroad company did not use ordinary care in the selection of the couplings, by reason of which the deceased was killed, an instruction to the jury, to the effect that the question of negligence was for them to decide under all the evidence in the case, even if it appeared that the deceased knew the character, kind, and dangerous nature of the couplings, and that such knowledge is a circumstance to be considered by the jury, but is not necessarily decisive, is correct.

Id.—Erroneous Instruction — Forgetfulness of Continuous Danger — Contributory Negligence. — An instruction to the effect that notwithstanding the deceased was engaged in a dangerous business, renuirjng constant and watchful care upon his part to save himself from inj ury, still, if he did not always bear these things in mind and act upon them, and was thereby injured, he could recover, is erroneous, where there is no evidence showing sudden danger or emergency, and the only danger was the ever-present one incident to the act of coupling the cars. An injury received under such circumstances would be the direct result of contributory negligence, which would defeat a recovery.

Id.—Coupling in General Use — Evidence oe Ordinary Care — Instructions. — It is proper to refuse a requested instruction, that if the character of coupling used by the defendant was in general use among railroad companies it was not negligence upon the part of the defendant to use it. Such general use was evidence tending to show ordinary care in the selection of the coupling, but not conclusive.

Garoutte, J. This action arose out of injuries resulting in the death of Arthur A. Martin, husband of respondent, who at the time of his death was a brakeman in the employ of appellant. While attempting to couple a caboose-car and a freight-car, the cars came together and he was instantly killed. The cause of action is based upon the theory that appellant did not use ordinary care in the selection of the couplings for the cars as operated, and that said Martin met his death by reason of such fact. The special negligence alleged against appellant consisted in the use of a “ Miller hook coupling” upon the caboose-car in connection with a Potter draw-head coupling upon the freight-car; that while each of the couplings, when used in connection with one of its own kind, was practically safe and entirely proper, yet when used in connection with one of the other character, the act of coupling cars became so dangerous that it indicated a lack of ordinary care in the selection of the apparatus, and the employer should be held responsible for all injuries resulting therefrom to the employee.

Appellant denies the unfitness of the machinery, alleges that deceased knew the character of it and assumed the risk, and also that he was guilty of contributory negligence; and in this connection appellant insists that the following instructions, given by the court to the jury, were erroneous: —

“1. The jury are instructed that in this case it is claimed by the defendant that deceased knew the nature, kind, and character of the couplings used on the caboose-car mentioned in the complaint, and that, having such knowledge, he should have so acted as to have avoided injury by said coupling appliances, and failing to do so, he was guilty of contributory negligence. The question of negligence is for the jury to decide, under all the evidence in the case, even if it appears that said deceased, Martin, knew the character, kind, and dangerous nature of the said coupling. While it is a circumstance to be taken into consideration by. you, it is not necessarily a decisive one.

[330]“ 2. If the service to be performed by said Martin in making said coupling was of a character to require that his exclusive attention should be fixed upon it, and that he should act with rapidity and promptness, the law does not require that he should always bear in mind the nature, kind, and dangerous character of. said coupling appliances, or be prepared at all times to avoid it. Taking all the facts into account, it is for you to determine whether said Martin was guilty of such negligence as contributed directly to his death. If you find he was not guilty of such negligence, and that the accident was caused by the neglect of the defendant, then your verdict should be for plaintiff.”

Martin v. California Central Railway Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief