O'Neil v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri
The plaintiff avers in his petition that, at the time of the accident therein referred to, he was a brakeman in the employment of defendant'; that .while, in the performance of his duties as such, he was coupling a car, used and operated by defendant at the time, to a certain engine of the defendant, his hand and arm were caught between the car and engine, and crushed and lacerated so that it was necessary to amputate it between the elbow and wrist, and that it was…
Read the full summary
The plaintiff avers in his petition that, at the time of the accident therein referred to, he was a brakeman in the employment of defendant'; that .while, in the performance of his duties as such, he was coupling a car, used and operated by defendant at the time, to a certain engine of the defendant, his hand and arm were caught between the car and engine, and crushed and lacerated so that it was necessary to amputate it between the elbow and wrist, and that it was amputated; that said injuries were caused by the defective, unsuitable, and dangerous apparatus and appliances for coupling said…
1Opinion of the Court
Treat, D. J.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant. A trial was had, and verdict rendered for plaintiff. The defendant has filed motions for new trial and in arrest. The plaintiff was an employe of the defendant, and the accident occurred while he was engaged in the scope of *340his employment, viz., as brakeman,in coupling ears on a freight train. The evidence at the trial was conflicting. It seems that the defendant railway, in the discharge of its duties, was accustomed to receive, couple, and haul on its trains cars belonging to other…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Hough v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Flike v. . Boston and Albany R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Coombs v. New Bedford Cordage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Dolner v. The MonticelloU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1870
- Ford v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Thomas v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. LeeSupreme Court of Florida · 1944