Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-12-27
COURT DECISIONS.
otes pf5Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest TO !
Our People.

ploEsTED BY w. s. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virgln.an-pilot., I.
N. s W. r. CO. y. STEVENS,
Supreme Court Of Appeals of Virginia
Il November 1G, 1899,
THE DISTRIBUTION OF DAMAGES
f. FOR DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT
is ExcLUsIvELY FOR THE
JURY.
AN EMPLOYER IS NOT LIABLE
FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
EMPLOYED TO Do,WoRK WHICH
is LAWFUL AND NOT INTRIN-
S1CALLY DANGEROUS, SUCH AS
& BUILDING A RAILROAD BRIDGE.
II is THE DUTY OF AN EMPLOYER
TO EXERCISE ORDINARY CARE
IN FURNISHING SUITABLE AND
SAFE APPLIANC GEES, MACHINERY
AND ROADWAY. AND THIS DUTY
HE CANNOT ASSIGN TO AN
OTHER.
DEFINITION OF "oRD1NARY
CARE.''
This was a suit by the administrators
of one Stephens for damages resulting
from his death while Il fireman of the
Norfolk anu Western Railway Com
pany. That Company contracted with
the Phoenix Bridge Company to build
bridge over South river in place OF
an old one then existing. During the
work the train on which Stephens was
fireman went through the bridge and
he was killed. The Phoenix Company
was a careful and competent company.
and the contract of the railroad COM
Dany with it contained all usual stipu-
lations for the safety of those exposed
to risks incident to the building of the
bridge. There was judgment for the
plaintiff for $4,000 In the lower court.
and defendant appealed.
The court says:
THE manner in which the damages
are to be distributed is no concern of
the defendant, and not under the con-
troll Of the plaintiff 1t is a question
FOR the jury exclusively, not involved
III the issue" The first objection is
overruled.
Nor do we think the second objec-
ton we'll taken, for there is no rule
OF law which compels a party to state
in his declaration every matter which
may enhance the damages.
The third objection is we'll taken.
There was no necessary or probate OBJ
lection between the negligence which
resulted in the death of the PLAINTIFFS
intestattc and the nervous condition
of his mother, which resulted in
an attack of bronchitis. Whether or not
the merely mental anguish of the moth
er could with propriety be considered
as all element OF damage we shall
leave an open question.
That the Phoenix Bridge Company
was ali independent contractor is clear
upon the law and evidence.
AN indcDendent contractor may be
defined as one who, in the course of an
independent occupation, prosecutes and
directs the work himself, using his own
method to accomplish it,, and repre-
scnting the will of the company only
as TO the result of the work. Generally
where an Independent contractor is en-
ployed to perform a work lawful in it.
self and not intrlnSically dangerous,
the company, IL it is not negligent in
selecting the contractor, Is not liable
for the wrongful acts or negligence of
such contractor"
According to the rule in this State
the master is not required to exercise
more than ordinary care for the safety
Gus The business may be in which the
servant Is employed" Ordinary care
depends upon the circumstances of the
particular case, and is such care rs a
person of ordinary prudence, under all
the circumstances, would have exer-
cised."
1.-THE degree of care required In such
cases, under our law, must be ascer-
tanned by the general usages Of the
business"
1t is shown in the evidence that 1t is
the general custom OF railroad compa-
MES to construct bridges as was done
in this case, and that it is not an essen
TALLY hazardous Undertaking. That
while it requires care to substitute a.
new bridge for an old one without the
INTERRUPTION of traffic, with ordinary
care 1t may be done with entire safety.
1t further appears that the Phoenix
Bridge Company is an established and
reputable concern largely engaged in
such work, and has the confidence of
the business public. The contract
seems carefully to have guarded, as
far as human foresight Gould do
against the dangers incident to the
work. If the bridge company had com
Piled strictly with its contract the acct
dent would not have occurred. But
the railroad company is not RESPONSE
BILE for the negligence Of the Phoenix
Bridge Company; it is responsible only
for its own negligence and that of its
agents and employees. while the Phoenix
Bridge ComDany was an independent
contractor. Reversed.
McIsLvEEN V. SOUTHERN r. co.