The Sentinel. [volume] (Trenton, N.J.) 1880-1882, 1882-10-07
Important Decisions.
Easter and servant---Contributory
Negligence.

Easter and Observation-Disclosures
Negligence.
AaNer ". Union Pacific RdilsOdy Com
pdny. United States Circuit Court,
District Of Colorado, June, 1882.
Where q master or another servant
standing, toward the servant injured,
In the relation Of superior or vice prin
cipal, orders the latter into q situation
Of danger, and he obeys and is thereby
injured, the law will not charge him
with contributory negligence, unless
the danger was 40 glaring that no pru-
dent man would have entered into it,
even under orders from one having
authority over him.
Master and observation-disclosures Of Rail-
way Company Relating to Bridge Defects
Evidence.
Tosburg ~. the Lake Shore and Mdchi-
gan Southern Railroad Company.
Supreme Court of Nes0 York Fourth
Department., General Term, Aprsl,
1882.
Plaintiff was q brakeman In the
employ of the defendant company and
was injured by the falling of the Ash
tabula bridge, December 29dh, 1875,
while the train on which he was en-
ployed was passing over the bridge.
No negligence was imputed to plain
tit. 1t was claimed that the bridge
twas faulty In its construction in
many respects" and that a competent
engineer could have discovered the
imperfections by an examination at
any time after 1t was constructed. On
motion for q new trial on exceptions
after verdict for plaintiff, Held: That
If the structure was insufficient at the
time of the injuries, and was known to
be 10, or might have been known SO to
be bv the defendant company if it had
exercised due care, then the defendant
was negligent of Its duty and that
negligence established, plaintiffs right
of recovery follows. 100 U. s., 900; SO
N. W
The court charged the jury as fol
lows: SIN this case the issue Is on the
question whether the bridge was in a
safe and secure condition. Plaintiff
alleges that it was not, and it is for
him to prove that it was
insecure and unsafe, as matter of fact,
at the time of the injury. If you find
that it was not in safe and Secure
condition. arising from defects which
were latent in their character, which
could not be detected by engineers or
bridge builders who have reasonable
degree of skill and experience in their
profession by the use of the usual and
ordinary tests, appliances, inspection,
and examination which il is customary
to apply to structures of this nature
with view to ascertain their adequacy
for the use to which they are devoted,
then the plaintiff has no cause of action
II it was defective in that manner"
Held: That such instructions were IS
favorable to defendant as it was entl-
tied to.
One B was called as witness, and
testified that he was civil engineer,
and that he had experience in his pro-
fession in the constr uction of bridges
that he examined the debris of the
J htabula bridge in January, 1877.
After describing the condition in
which he found the bridge and its
original construction, he was asked
"Tell the causes which produced the
falling of the bridge in your opinion p
The witness was allowed to answer
under objections "There are many
causes which might lead to the failure
Of the bridge. The first is, as under.
stand it, the bad design of the work as
built, and also the defective manner OF
constructing the work" Held: Nc
error. The witness was asked for his
OpAhAOA OA l1Ct5 AuOW IL 1llu taSCcI Ch1llCU
by him, and not on facts revealed by
other witnesses. See 16 N. Y, 178; %
N. Y, %; 80 N. Y, 44s; Guiterman .,
Liverpool 8. Co., SO N. Y, 1858, distin.
guished. Motion denied.
Station Agents---Authority to make Con.
tracts for Transportation.
Wood W. Chicago, Mils0aukee and ST.
raul hoil,oay Company. Supreme
Court Of Io,0a, July 18Th, 1882.
Whether station agents along the
line of a railway have authority to
bind the company by their contract to
furnish cars for the transportation OF
property at q particular station at q
given time, fs aquestion OF fact and
not of law. Courts cannot say as mat
ter of law, that station agents must
possess the power to bind the company
by such contracts. nor can the courts
take judicial notice that such aeents
possess such power, or are held out to
he world ~ possessing 1t.