Hawkins v. Saint Louis & San Francisco Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Lawrence County Circuit Court. — Eon. Carr McNatt, Judge. (1) The demurrer should have been sustained. Plaintiff was not entitled to go to the jury as to the first specification of negligence, i. e., the failure to properly light the roundhouse, because he assumed the risk of that negligence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lawrence County Circuit Court. — Eon. Carr McNatt, Judge. (1) The demurrer should have been sustained. Plaintiff was not entitled to go to the jury as to the first specification of negligence, i. e., the failure to properly light the roundhouse, because he assumed the risk of that negligence. This action is governed by the Act of Congress commonly called the Employer’s Liability Act, and by the rule of decision prevailing in the Federal courts with respect to the construction and operation thereof. Under that rule of decision, the servant assumes the risks arising out of a defect…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
FARRINGTON, J.
Appellant contends that plaintiff was not entitled to have the jury pass on the case as to either of the two specifications of negligence, and that therefore its peremptory instruction should have been given. This has necessitated a review of the evidence, considered in the most favorable aspect to plaintiff. [Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 233 U. S. 184, 58 L. Ed. 906, l. c. 911.]
Briefly stated, the plaintiff’s case is as follows: He was the night foreman at defendant’s roundhouse *209and it was his duty to merely supervise and superintend such repairs as were necessary to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. HortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Railway Co. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Lapina v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Fish v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1914
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Tash v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- Cross v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Bird v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935