The Russellville Democrat., 1883-03-29

foot on the step. While she held that
position, and without any apparent
cause, her right knee-cap snapped anil
was fractured. There was no slipping
or stumbling, no blow or force OF any
kind. She brought suit. ascribing the
casualty TO strain attributable to the
step being extrayagantly high from the
ground. The company denied that tho
step was unusually high. and said that
the injury could only be attributed to
some constitutional weakness of the
lady's knee; and they brought witness
or two to show that the left knee-cap
had previously been broken almost as
unaccountably. The Court said the jury
must decide as well as they could wheth-
err the injury was attributable to any
negligence on the part of the company;
if il was fortuitousif it could not
have been anticipated and provided
against--thcre was no liability. But in
case like this negligence must be af-
firmatively proved. There was no
ground for presumine it. The cars
were at standstill; there was no Jar or
breaking of machinery; the lady was
alighting without any interference from
the company; and, if the step appeared
too high, she might havedemanded bet
ter facilities.
A car ON the Northern Pacific Road
left the track, and as it was bouncing
along, one Of the passengers endeavored
to save himself by rushing to the plat.
form and jumping off He was badly
hurt, but, as the result proved, he
would probably have been safe If he had
remained in the car The. company
urged that the injury was clearly his
own fault But the Court said that the
wisdom of jumping in such case is not
to be determined by the result. The
passenger must Judge of the compare
tive danger of remaining still or at
tempting to get off by the circumstances
as they appear 10 him. He has to act
upon the probabilities at the time. The
jury must judge the case in the same
way If the leap was an act which q
person of ordinary prudence might do
under the circumstances, it does not
prevent the passenger from recovering
damages.
Two recent cases have occurred of in.
jury to an employee occasioned by his be.
ing knocked from the top of car by .
| bridge over the road. Both have been
decided, in accordance with previous
decisions, that company is not bound
toward employees to place its bridges
| high enough to admit of man standing
erect on car underneath. Injury from
a low bridge is one of the risks of brake
mans employment.
An Illinois decision discusses the eff
feet of conductors urging person to
a dangerous act. A long freight trails
ran into the city of Knoxville and wa.
left standing on the track in such posi-.
ton that the middle part of the train
stood opposite street, and thus the cars
DISTRACTED any one in crossing. This
street was the natural passage forpersona
coming to take passenger trains. The
trqinnien ought to have divided the
freight train; but they had rot done so.
Mr.. Sykes, approaching with intention
of boarding an expected train, found
himself hindered by the freight cars, and
stopped on the sidewalk. hesitating how
to cross. The conductor called to him,
Come on under; You will have plenty
of timen Thus encouraged, Mr.. Sykes
tried to creep under the freight cars, but
at that moment the engineer started
Them, and Mr. Sykes was fatally injured.
The Court said that conductor has moi
unlimited authority to invite persons to
take risks, and traveller orpassenger il
not justified in doing what is evidently
foolhardy because conductor tells him
to. But, under circumstances like these
the jury might well consider the compa
ny as dounly liable: 1, for fault in mo-
dividing the train; 2, for the conductor
invitation. The negligence, if any, at
tributable to Sykes, was too slight to de
feat an action for damages.
The question has often been discussed
what agents have authority to bind the
company by calling a physician or sur
geon to treat person suddenly injured
BY railroad accident. A laborer on thu
Atehison & Nebraska Railroad had hi.
foot nearly cut of by some accident
with the machinery in use, and thu
! "boss" of the gang in which he wa
working telegraphed to the Genera
Superintendent to know if he nigh
"get doctor for him." The Superin
tendent telegraphed in answer: Yes
do all you can to save the foot and max,
him comfortable" The Court held tina
by this telegram from the General Su
perintendent the "boss was authorized
to employ physician or surgeon, ant
also to engage reasonable board while
the foot was being treated. Board ant
care while one is suffering from wount
are within the direction Ito make hin
comfortable And it was not necessar,
to wait for formal letter signed by tn
Superintendent telegram was suffi
eient. When an employc goes to tel
egraPh office and sends dispatch t.
his superior, and in short time receive
from the same operator what purport
dispatch, he is warranted in presumins
that the dispatch received is genuine
and in acting according to it.-RaiI
road Gazette.