Case ID: shan-cas_1/html/0085-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GOGGIN v. E. T. VA. R. R. CO.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 142-145.)
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1858.
    MASTEE AND SEEVANT. Liability of railroad for injuries to employees.
    A master is not answerable to one of his servants for an injury received by him in consequence of the carelessness of another servant, while both are engaged in the same service, especially where the master used due care in the selection of his servants, and made proper provisions for their safety. [Cited in 13 Lea, 426. 'See Eox v. Sandford, 4 Sneed, 36; Washburn v. Eailroad, 3 Bax., 427; Eailroad v. Elliott, I Cold., 612, 616, 617; Eagsdale v. Eailroad, 3 Bax., 427; Eailroad v. Jones, 9 Heis., 39, 40; Erwin v. Davenport, 9 Heis., 49; Iron Co. v. Dobson, 7 Lea, 372, 373, 375, 376-378; Guthrie v. Eailroad, 11 Lea, 378-381; Eailroad v. Handman, 13 Lea, 425-428; Whitelaw v. Eailroad, 16 Lea, 395, 397; Eailroad v. Lahr, 2 Pickle, 335, 338-340; Eailroad v. Wheless, 10 Lea, 748; Porter v. Waters-Allen, etc., Co., 10 Pielde, 370; Eailroad v. Martin, 3 Pielde, 398; Hopkins v. Eailroad, 12 -Pickle, 409. But the master is liable to one of his servants for injuries received by him from another superior servant who in the particular matter stands in the place of the master, or from a servant in a different department of work. Haynes v. Eailroad, 3 Cold., 223; Eailroad v. Carroll, 6 Heis., 354-365; Eailroad % Bowler, 9 Heis., 870; Iron Co. v. Dobson, 7 Lea, 377, 378; Eailroad v. Poster, 10 Lea, 359; Guthrie v. Eailroad, II Lea, 372; Eailroad v. Handman, 13 Lea, 428-430; Eailroad v Collins, 1 Pickle, 227; Eailroad v. Lahr, 2 Pickle, 335, 340, 341; Eailroad v. Wheless, 10 Lea, 741; Eailroad v. ICenley, 8 Pickle, 210-212; Eailroad v. Duffield, 12 Lea, 63; Allen v. Goodwin, 8 Pickle, 385; Washburn v. Eailroad, 3 Head, 638; Eagsdale v. Eailroad, 3 Bax., 427. Por the general liability of railroads for damages for injuries and deaths, see Code, secs. 1574-1599, and notes.]
   Wright, J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

This is an action on tbe case for an injury sustained by tbe plaintiff at tbe time be was in tbe employment of the defendant as a servant or laborer, caused by tbe alleged negligence of other servants or agents of tbe defendant while also'in tbe employment of tbe defendant.

Tbe cause of action as stated in tbe declaration is that tbe plaintiff was employed with other laborers by tbe defendant in loading with earth and gravel a certain train of cars, which the defendant bad then and there running upon the road of tbe defendant, and which train of cars was then and there under the care, direction, and government of certain agents of tbe defendant; and wbicb said train of cars was used for the conveyance of the said earth and gravel from alongside <>f the said road where the same were loaded, to a certain point down the road. And the said plaintiff, with other laborers, being so employed, was subject to the order and control of the said agents of the defendant, then and there having the care and direction and government of said train; and being so subject to, the plaintiff, with other laborers, was ordered to place a certain hand car upon said road, and upon it to follow said train of cars up the road from the point where said train had been loading, so as to' get out of the way of a certain other train of cars which the defendant had then and there running upon said road, and which said last mentioned train of cars was then and there under the care, government, and direction of certain other agents of the defendant. And the plaintiff, with others, in compliance with the orders so delivered to him and others, did place said hand car upon said road, and upon said hand car did follow the said first-mentioned train of cars up the said road, and were urging the said hand car along at considerable speed to' get out of the way of, and to escape danger from the said other train of cars of the defendant, which was approaching them from behind, and very near; nevertheless, by the gross negligence and carelessness of the defendant; by its agents having the care and direction of the said mentioned train which had started up the road, in the breaking of and stopping said train at an unusual point of stoppage, and in a curve of said road, where the said plaintiff could not see the train until he had approached so near the same, that it was impossible to check up the said hand car until it came in violent collision with the said train, whereby the said hand car upon which the said plaintiff and others were riding, and by means of which they were endeavoring to escape from danger from the train coming behind them, was' brought into violent contact with the first-mentioned train, and the plaintiff was thereby, then and there; thrown with great force and violence against said train, and was thereby greatly bruised, hurt, etc.

To this declaration the defendant demurred, and the circuit court having sustained the demurrer, the plaintiff appealed to this court.

The judgment of the circuit court is in accordance with the decision of this court, in the case of Fox v. Sandford et al., 4 Sneed, 36, in which it was settled that a-,master is not answerable to one of his servants for an injury received by him in consequence of the carelessness of another servant, while both are engaged in the same, service.

We think upon this authority the declaration stated no causa of action against the defendant.

It is not alleged that the defendant was wanting in due care in the selection of its servants, or in making proper provisions for their safety. The claim for damages is put solely upon the negligence and carelessness of other servants of the defendant, while they and the plaintiff were both engaged in what we esteem the same service. The judgment of the circuit court is also fully sustained by the cases of Farwell v. The Boston & Worcester R. R. Co., 4 Metcalf’s Rep., 36; Hayes v. The Western Railroad Corporation, 3 Cushing’s Rep., 270.

Judgment affirmed.