Turner v. Norfolk & W. R.
West Virginia Supreme Court
I.— rrhe engineer and fireman of the special engine were fellow servants of the decedent, a section hand upon the track,— 109 IT. S. 478; 27 Md. 589; 58 Wis. 585; 9 Cush.
Read the full summary
I.— rrhe engineer and fireman of the special engine were fellow servants of the decedent, a section hand upon the track,— 109 IT. S. 478; 27 Md. 589; 58 Wis. 585; 9 Cush. (A/ass.) 112; 88 N. Y. 481; 81 Minn. 553; 35 N. W. Rep. 582; 5 N. Y. 492. II.— The plaintiff’s decedent was guilty of contributory negligence. — Cooley on Torts (2d Ed.) p. 812; 29 W. Va, 98; 33 W. Va. 548; 88 Mich. 334; 30 W. Va. 798. III.— Turner, the party hilled, toas sixteen years of age, and having passed the age of fourteen, he was presumed to have had sufficient capacity and understanding to be sensible of danger,…
1Opinion
ON Rehearing,
In their able re-argument of this case, defendant’s counsel present six points for further consideration. '
“First. The engineer and fireman of the special engine-were fellow servants of the decedent, a section hand on the track.” This depends entirely upon the nature of the act or duty, as it relates, to the decedent, they were called upon to discharge at the time of the accident. In some respects they were his fellow servants, but in giving him warning of the use of the track by a special train, they were discharging the non-assignable, personal, positive, or superior duty of…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Randall v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Mayer v. FrobeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1895
- Gregory's Adm'r v. Ohio River R'dWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1893
- Dowling v. Gerard B. Allen & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1881
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.