Catlin v. Michigan Central Railroad

In order to entitle the plaintiff to a recovery in this case it was incumbent upon him to prove that the defendant was negligent in employing an incompe*359tent person as a fireman, and in continuing him in its employment after it knew of his imcompetency; and, further, that the injury complained of resulted from the ignorance or incompetency of the fireman.

Counsel for defendant insist that there was no testimony tending to prove either of these facts, and that the learhed judge erred in submitting the case to the jury for that reason. The testimony lending to show that defendant was negligent in…