Holmes v. Southern Pacific Co.

California Supreme Court Mar 24, 1898 No. S. F. No. 543Published

Before: Garoutte, Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish negligence by the defendant regarding the condition of the cars, as the variation in drawhead height was a common risk assumed by the employee. Furthermore, the court held that a company rule requiring the use of a coupling stick is void as against public policy if the rule is rendered impracticable by the conditions of the service.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported a finding of negligence regarding the construction or maintenance of the railroad cars.
Whether the risk of coupling cars with varying drawhead heights is an assumed risk of the employment.
Whether a company rule requiring the use of a coupling stick is enforceable if the rule is impracticable to follow in practice.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“I think, therefore, that there was no evidence tending to prove negligence on the part of the defendant in the respects named.”

“So far as the rule has that effect it is against public policy and void.”

“The judgment and order are reversed, and a new trial ordered.”

Synopsis

Negligence—Railroad—Coupling Oars—Difference in Elevation of Drawheads.—The mere fact that the drawheads of two freight-cars which a switchman on a railroad was engaged in coupling, and which were otherwise in good condition, differed in elevation from the track by from two to three inches, is not of itself sufficient evidence of the negligence of the railroad to render it liable for an injury suffered by the employee while in the act of coupling. If the risk of the switch-man’s occupation was thus increased, it was a risk which he assumed by his contract.

Id.—Fellow-servant—Swiftly Moving Cars. — The fact that the cars were too rapidly moved by the engineer, if negligence at all, was the act of a fellow-servant, for which the company is not responsible.

Id.—Rule of Company—Impracticability of Operation—Public Policy.— A rule promulgated by a railroad company, purporting to direct its employees with respect to the manner in which they should perform certain work, which is utterly impracticable in operation, or rendered so by the mode and conditions under which the service is required, and the only result of which would be to relieve the employer from the obligations imposed upon him by law to use ordinary diligence in furnishing safe appliances with which to work, and safe conditions. for the performance of the service, is against public policy and void, and its nonobservance by the employee will not relieve the railroad from liability for a negligence for which it would otherwise have been liable.

Opinion — Temple

TEMPLE, J. This action was brought by the administratrix of William E. Holmes, deceased, to recover damages for the death of the decedent, which it is alleged was caused by the negligence of the defendant.

[359]The defendant denies that it was negligent, and charges contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

The negligence charged against the defendant is alleged to consist in the improper construction of the two cars which deceased was in the act of coupling when he was injured, and in the alleged neglect to repair the same and to keep them in good condition. The defendant contends that there was no proof that either car was defective, and certainly none of negligence in that matter on the part of the defendant.

It is admitted that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and that the mere fact of the accident and consequent injury does not prove negligence, but respondent contends, nevertheless, that the accident and the attendant circumstances do show that one or both of the cars were defective. Respondent states the facts which she claims prove the defective construction of the cars as follows:

“1. That William E. Holmes, the plaintiff’s husband, was caught and crushed between the ilat-car and the box-car which he was trying to couple; 2. That he was so caught by the passing of the drawbar of the ilat-car over the top of the drawbar of the box-car, so that the end of the flat-car crushed into the end of the box-car; 3. That the flat-car after the accident was raised off its bearings, and the body of the car was on the truck; 4. That the drawbar of the flat-car passed over the drawbar of the box-car because one was higher than the other.”

It is evident that the first three statements have very little bearing upon the matter unless the fourth is also established, and, even admitting all four, it may still be true that neither car was defectively constructed. That is, it may be that the accident would not have happened had not the drawhead upon one car been higher than the other, and yet there may have been no defect in either. It is admitted that the standard elevation of drawheads had been thirty-three inches from the rail to the center of the drawhead, and that the box-car was of that standard. Also that the flat-car was of a new standard, to wit, thirty-four and one-half inches. There is really no evidence of any other difference in the drawheads. There is also testimony that both cars were until the accident in their normal condition; and as to this there was no conflict, unless the condition of the cars after

Holmes v. Southern Pacific Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Temple

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Dissent — Garoutte

AI Brief