The San Francisco call., 1897-12-21
His Suit Against Two
Corporations Put Out
Of Court.
Den1urrers Of the Southern
Pacific and the Pacific Mail
Sustained.
A Decision by Circuit Judge Hawley
Which Is of Great Interest to
Employers.

Patrick CaroIan must amend his
complaint before he can have another
chance in court. He sued the Southern
Pacific Company and the Pacific Mail
Steamship Company for damages re-
ceived by him by a great fall in tea.
The tea was in boxes when it fell and
it broke Mr.. Carolan's leg. He was on
top of the pile when it collapsed, and
he alleged that somebody besides him
self was to blame for the accident.
United States Circuit Judge Hawley
yesterday sustained the demurrers Of
both defendants in the suit, and the
case is virtually out of court OF the
present complaint. The complaint re-
cites that on the 30th of June last the
Pacific Mail Steamship Company piled
up on its dock a large numb of boxes
of tea near the track of the Southern
Pacific Company; that Carolan was an
emplOye of the railroad company en-
gagged in placing the boxes on the cars,
and while so occupied the pile col
lapsed, throwing Carolan twelve or
fourteen feet TO the wharf, breaking
one of his legs and bruising his body.
The complaint alleges that the acci-
dent was caused solely by reason of
the fact that the boxes were negligent
ly piled in such a manner as to fall
safe condition of the pile might have
been known to the defendants by the
exercise of ordinary care. In render
ing his decision on the demurrer, Judge
Hawley said:
There is no allegation that the plaintiff
did not know or that he might have
known, by the exercise of ordinary care,
the unsafe condition of the boxes of tea.
1t does not appear from the allegations in
the complaint that the injuries which the
I = fa11 Gnd Nv
fective or unsafe appliances furnished by
the master. The Southern Pacific Com
pan! nad holhlhg WhateVer 10 90 with
the plllng OF the boxes of tea on the
wharf, which, according to the theory of
the plaintiff. was the only thing which
made the place unsafe.
1t is manifest upon these facts that the
plaintiff is not entitled to recover unless
from allegations Of the complaint it ap-
pears that the defendant failed in its
duty to provide the plaintiff with a safe
place in which to work or failed to fur
msh him, with safe appliances with which
TO perform his work The Southern Pa
Cific is not shown to have had any au-
thOrity or duty to perform in piling the
boxes. On the other hand, it is affirma-
lively shown that the injury which plain
tllI received was not caused by any fault
or negligence of the railroad company
but was OccasiOned by the handling and
transportation of the boxes of tea in the
performance of the WOrk-uSual and ordi-
nary in its character-Which the plain
TN was, employed to do, and came
L,
sumed by him at the time.
In the. present case the wharf is not
alleged to have been unsafe. II
was in the handling of this freight by the
plaintiff and his fellow-servants, not by
any defects in the appliances furnished
by the railway company nor danger at
the place where he was employed thai
plaintiff was injured. There is al
ways more or less danger in handling
freight, either in loading or unloading
cars, but my attention has not beer
called to any case where the master has
been held responsible for an injury re-
ceiVed by an emplOye engaged in that
business while simply doing the work he
was engaged to perform. In all the cases
where a recovery has been had the in.
jury was occasioned by the place al
which he was put to work being unsaf f.
by reason of some defect in the platform
or wharf where freight was piled, which
was known to the master and unknown
to the servant. or bv reason Of somt
defect in the appliances furnished by the
master to the servant.