Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-09-29
COURT ] /. /: E.Cls, ]. L |! NJ;
Notes Of Cases Recently Decd ed,
Which are Of Interest 10 8
4 Our People.
DIGESTED BY ". B. MARTIN.
tExclusively for virEinian-Plioe)
!. & N. r. CO. Y. MILLrKEN's ADMIR-

"A RAILROAD COMPANY IS: LIABLE
FOR AN INJURY TO A BRAKE
| MAN ON A FREIGHT TRAIN
CAUSED BY MAIL BAG ON "A
MAIL CRANE ERECTED TOO
CLOSE TO THE TRACK. If THE
CRANE WAS NOT PUT TOO CLOSE
TO THE TRACK THE COMPANY is
NOT LIABLE.
This was All action for damages re-
sultinS from the killing of Il brakeman
on n freight train or defendant COM
pany and was brought by the brake
mans administrator. The brakeman
was sitting on top of a freight car, as
his train approached a station, with
his feet over the side OF the car next
to where mail crane had been erect
cd. a mail bag hung on the crane
ready to be taken off by the next pass
ing mail train. The bag hung so that
1t would come in contact with n man
sitting OIL top OF a freight car with his
legs hanging naturally over the side.
Just after the freight train passed 1t
Was noticed that the arm of the crane
flew up Gas 1t did when Il mail bag was
taken from IT'D and the brakeman was
| missing from the top of the car. Af-
forwards he was found about GO feet
from the crane. in the direction in
which the train was going, dead. and
the mail bag IL few feet from him, be-
tween him and the crane. There was
Il judgment for plaintiff and defendant
appealed.
The court says:
1t Is insisted that the proof does not
show that his feet came in contact with
the mail bag rs lie passed the crane, or
that he was knocked off i'm this way. 1t
is true he might have kicked Mt the
mail bag, and SO became entangled with
1t, ard lost his balance, but negligence
is not TO be presumed against him. It
seems to us the more natural conclusion
that, while sitting there and uncon-
scious of the movable arm of the crane
being pulled down, he was struck by the
bag and knocked off.
1t Is insisted for appellant that, even
IL this is true, there can be no rccov-
cry. and we are referred to the case
of Sisco V. Railroad Co. as sustaining
that conclusion. Among other things
the court said: at was not found
that the crane in question could be
placed any further from the track than
it was and perform the function for
which 1t was designed. The plaintiff
was bound to show state of facts indi-
eating negligent construction or loca-
ton, to raise n question for the jury on
this point. He took the risk of all the
structures necessary and reasonably
adapted to the business Of the rail-
This seems to us TO be q fair state
mcnt OF the law. But in this case
there was evidence that the crane was
not upright, but leaned toward the road
about four inches. The swing of the
arms and the hanging of the bag al
ways oil the side next to the road,
would have n tendency to pull the up
right post over. This would throw the
bag nearer the car, the greater the in
clination became. 1t was also in proof
that this crane was set some four and
one-half inches nearer the track than
other cranes from which the mail was
taken. If this proof was true, this
mail bag hung something like eight
inches nearer the track than required
by the government. and II it had hung
eight inches further off, from the photo
graphs exhibited. it would seem that
the interstate would not have been
knocked Off. We cannot under this ev-
idence say that ne failed to show that
the defendant might. by the use of rea-
sonable care have accomplished it's
purpose. and at the aame time prntnct-
ed It's employees from injury. There
was, therefore, sufficient evidence of
negligence to submit the case to the
jury.