The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-04-05
REEDS VERDICT.
Consolidated Road Seeks
TO Have it Set Aside.
Was for $4,000, and Was
Given for Injuries Received.
Plaintiff Was Thrown to Ground
While Setting Up a Brake.

Before Justice Stiness and Tillinghast
were heard today arguments on the defen.
dants' petition for a new trial in the case
of Charles n. Reed VS.. New York, New
Haven q Hartford Railroad Company, and
New England Railroad Company. A jury
in Judge Rogers court gave the plaintiff
"A verdict for 5000 against both defendant
corporations.
The plaintiff was on the 2Sth of .Ianu-
airy, 1896 in the employ Of the defendant
corporations as conductor of a switching
engine at Horizons Grove. At about 3. 30
O'Clock in the morning it being then dark
the plaintiff received string OF 20 freight
cars TO be forwarded TO their destination.
The last of the string was flat car loaded
with lumber received from the New Eng
land Railroad Company 20 be forwarded
along the lines of the New York, New
Haven & Hartford Railroad Company.
This car was upon the main track and
was switched off on a side track i'm order
TO prevent collision with an overdue
train. After the car had stopped plaintiff
got upon the end of it and started To set
the brake when because of a flaw the
brake staff broke and he fell 60 the ground
receiving, as he claims, injuries TO his
back and spine.
This car was defective i'm having a
broken drawbar SO that il was fastened to
the adjoining car by n chain, and the
plaintiff knew of this fact. The car was
a New York and New England car and,
had been received from that road by the
\. Y. y. III. a. Hartford Railroad Com
pany ON the day previous To the accident.
The plaintiff claims that he did not know
of the defect in the brake, and that the
defendants did know, or should have
known of the defect The defendants
clasm that the car was inspected on the
day IL was received, as Is customary, and
that the draMhar being found -defectiNa,
chain was put upon 1t for the purpose of
hauling IL out OF the way; that cards were
put upon the sides of the car indicating
that the car was defective; that this was
warning TO all trainmen that the car
was defective and that they should exer-
else the greatest care in handling it, Still
another claim set up by the defendants is
that the defect in the brake staff was
latent defect which was not discoverable
by the usual and ordinary method of in
spcction.
The grounds on which new trial is
asked are that the verdict was against
the evidence and against the law, and
that the damages awarded were excessive;
that the presiding justice erred in the adj
mission of testimony and I'm his refusal
to direct verdict for the defendants and
in his charge to the jury. In support Of
these points III. W. Hayes argued To the
court that the defendants were not in any
way negligent; that the plaintiff was
guilty of an utter lack of proper care,
and the testimony Of physicians showed
that the plaintiff had no symptoms of
spinal trouble, and that the only harm
done the plaintiff was possibly n. pad
shaking up, and that even IL there was
negligence of the car inspector, the plain
tiff was his fellow servant and therefore
cannot recover forthe formers negligence.
In behalf of the plaintiff, j. NJ. Bren-
fl.ut ~. b.. Iaf,
porations are liable. The New England
Railroad Company because it is the duty
of n railroad corporation in transporting
its ears over the lines of another railroad
TO use due diligence To provide cars reas-
onably safe for the service contemplated,
and that such duty is not limited TO the
corporation, but extends To its servants,
who must necessarily handle the cars.
The New York, New Haven a Hartford
Railroad Company, counsel cOntended,
was clearly liable, as railroad company
is under legal duty not To expose its en-
ployes To dangers arising from such de-
fects in foreign cars ms may be discovered
by reasonable inspection before such cars
are admitted 20 its trains
In regard to the claim that the injury
was caused by the negligence of car in
spector who was fellow servant it was
urged that the railroad company is
bound to sec that the cars drawn out ON
its road are in safe and proper condition,
and this duty cannot be delegated so as to
cxoncrate the company from liability To
its servants for injuries caused by an
omission TO perform that duty or by its
negligent performance. a case is cited
TO support this contention which related
60 the duty of the master TO his servant.
The defect in the brakestaff, it was
claimed, could have been discovered by
the most ordinary inspection, and that
either no inspection Of said car was made
or else grossly careless one. Attention
was called 90 the fact that the broken
brake was not produced at the trial, that
the brake was an old brake and that the
Hn,,Ai,,rtnI nr, Dn1rn