Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Aerkfetz v. Humphreys
145 U.S. 418
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1892-05-16
- Topic
- general
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court. Plaintiff was in the employ of the defendants in the yard of the railroad company at Delray, working on one of the tracks therein, and, while so engaged, was run over and injured by a freight car, moved by a switch engine. *419 The defences presented' were three: First, the receivers were guilty of no negligence; second, even if they were, plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; and, third, whatever negligence there was, if any, was that of a fellow-servant. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the ground of contributory negligence.' Much might be said in favor of each of the three propositions advanced by the defendants. We rest our affirmance of the judgment upon the grounds that under the circumstances there was no negligence on the part of the defendants, and that the accident occurred through a lack of proper attention on the part of the plaintiff.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Aerkfetz v. Humphreys. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 242 opinions
Headnotes
- Torts — Medical Malpractice The obligation of a railroad company's employee to take care and exercise diligence in avoiding accidents from its trains while performing his duties about the tracks is not measured by the obligation imposed upon a passenger when upon or crossing them; an employee familiar with yard operations is owed a lesser duty measured against his own knowledge of the ordinary and expected movement of cars. 145 U.S. 418 (1892)
- Torts — Negligence A railroad company is not negligent when cars are moved at a customary and necessary slow rate of speed through a yard, with no obstructions to view, where the employee in direct charge could reasonably believe that fellow employees familiar with the continuously recurring movement of cars would exercise reasonable precaution against their approach; the company is not required to station a man in front of the cars to warn employees who already possess knowledge of the expected operations. 145 U.S. 418 (1892)
- Torts — Comparative Negligence An experienced track repairer who, knowing that switch engines are constantly moving cars in the yard and that cars may be moved along the track on which he is working at any moment, places himself with his back to the direction from which cars are to be expected and continues his work without looking, is guilty of negligent inattention that contributes directly to his injury. 145 U.S. 418 (1892)
AERKFETZ v. HUMPHREYS,145 U.S. 418(1892)
12 S.Ct. 835
AERKFETZv. HUMPHREYS.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF MICHIGAN.
No. 355.
Submitted April 29, 1892.
Decided May 16, 1892.
The defences presented were three: First, the receivers were guilty of no negligence; second, even if they were, plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; and, third, whatever negligence there was, if any, was that of a fellow-servant. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the ground of contributory negligence. Much might be said in favor of each of the three propositions advanced by the defendants. We rest our affirmance of the judgment upon the grounds that under the circumstances there was no negligence on the part of the defendants, and that the accident occurred through a lack of proper attention on the part of the plaintiff.
There is little dispute in the testimony, and the facts, as disclosed are plainly these: The Delray yard is in the western part of the city of Detroit. In it were twelve tracks and sidetracks, and the yard was used for the making up of trains. A switch engine was employed therein, and, as might be expected, was constantly moving forwards and backwards, changing cars and making up trains. Plaintiff was a repairer of tracks. He had been employed there about eighteen months, and was familiar with the manner in which the work was done. The yard was about a quarter of a mile in length. The tracks were in a direct line east and west, with nothing to obstruct the view in either direction. At the time of the accident plaintiff was working near the west end of the yard, when a switch engine pushing two cars moved slowly along the track upon which he was at work, the speed of the engine being about that of a man walking. Plaintiff stood with his back to the approaching cars, and so remained at work without looking backward or watching for the moving engine until he was struck and run over by the first car.
Upon these facts we observe that the plaintiff was an employé, and, therefore, the measure of duty to him was not such as to a passenger or a stranger. As an employé of long experience in that yard, he was familiar with the moving of cars forward and backward by the switch engine. The cars were moved at a slow rate of speed, not greater than that which was customary, and that which was necessary in thePage 420making up of trains. For a quarter of a mile east of him there was no obstruction, and by ordinary attention he could have observed the approaching cars. He knew that the switch engine was busy moving cars and making up trains, and that at any minute cars were likely to be moved along the track upon which he was working. With that knowledge he places himself with his face away from the direction from which cars were to be expected, and continues his work without ever turning to look. Abundance of time elapsed between the moment the cars entered upon the track upon which he was working and the moment they struck him. There could have been no thought or expectation on the part of the engineer, or of any other employé, that he, thus at work in a place of danger, would pay no attention to his own safety. Under such circumstances, what negligence can be attributed to the parties in control of the train or the management of the yard? They could not have moved the cars at any slower rate of speed. They were not bound to assume that any employé, familiar with the manner of doing business, would be wholly in different to the going and coming of the cars. There were no strangers whose presence was to be guarded against. The ringing of bells and the sounding of whistles on trains going and coming, and switch engines moving forwards and backwards, would have simply tended to confusion. The person in direct charge had a right to act on the belief that the various employés in the yard, familiar with the continuously recurring movement of the cars, would take reasonable precaution against their approach. The engine was moving slowly, so slowly that any ordinary attention on the part of the plaintiff to that which he knew was a part of the constant business of the yard would have made him aware of the approach of the cars, and enabled him to step one side as they moved along the track. It cannot be that, under these circumstances, the defendants were compelled to send some man in front of the cars for the mere sake of giving notice to employés who had all the time knowledge of what was to be expected. We see in the facts as disclosed no negligence on the part of the defendants, and if by any means negligence could be imputed to them, surelyPage 421the plaintiff by his negligent inattention contributed directly to the injury.
The judgment was right, and it isAffirmed.