Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-06-08
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for vlrginian-Pilot.)

TRoXLER ". SOUTHERN RY. CO.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
March 81 1899.
FAILURE OF A RAILROAD COM
PANY TO USE AUTOMATIC COUP
LERS IN GENERAL USE. ON ITS
FREIGHT CARS. is NEGLIGENCE
PER Sc.
The PLAINTIFF was injured in attempt
ing to couple cars of the defendant on
which there were no automatic car
couplers, but In lieu thereof skeleton
drawbacks. OF unequal height. Tho
court below held that the absence of
automatic couplers In general use. was
negligence per sc, and refused to sub
nit an Issue whether the injury was
not caused by the negligence of a fell
low servant, and refused to instruct the
jury. as prayed. that the plaintiff was
guilty OF contributory negligence If he
could. by proper care, have coupled the
cars by hand without accident.
From a Judgment for plaintiff defend
ant appealed
The court says:
The duty to furnish proper and safe
appliances is that of the common mas
ter, and injury caused by their absence
cannot be attributed 10 the negligence
tofore held that failure OF railroad
company to equip its freight cars
with modern self-coupling devices,
is negligence per Sc. continuing up to
the time of an injury sustained by an
employa in coupling cars by hand, and
renders the company liable, whether
euch cmpioyc was negligent in the man
ner OF making the coupling or not. The
same ruling had been previously made
as TO the duty of furnishing automatic
car couplers on passenger trains.
where the negligence of the defendant
is continuing negligence las the fall-
ure 10 furnish safe appliances, in gen.
eral use. when the use of such appli-
ances would have prevented the posi-
bllity of the INJURY. there can be no
contributory negligence which will dis
chaigc the masters liability. This has
been repeatedly and uniformly held.
Ihe failure to provide the necessary
appliances is the causa cau5ans. The
defendant, however, frankly asks us to
reconsider and overrule Greenlees Case
That case WAS the expression of no new
doctrine. but the affirmation of one a.
old as the law. and founded on tho
soundest principles of justice and reas-
ON. to-wit: That when safer appliance
have been invented, tested, and have
come INTO general use, 1t is negligence
per Sc for the master to expose his SER
want To the hazard of life or limb from
Mh1rn nave h@en generally discarded
by ihc Intelligence and humanity of
rtHe. employers This must be so. II
M 'rs owe any duties to their en-
ii"!cr, Hnd unless economy of expendi-
lures on The part of the railroad man
hRcnchi is To be deemed superior to
the conservation of the lives and limbs
OF thoae employed in their operation.
As OF The 5000 employees reported in
thlS State, f,00O according to the usual
ratio) were employees engaged in the
actual oncratinn of the trains il
Io'i"ws that in this State such
enip'0ye In every 6M was in
that year injured or killed In
view OF such mortality. rivalinr that
81 the b.ooc!est wars. this court rannot
reverse its declaration heretofore
which is sustained by every sentiment
ni justice and humanity. that where a
life and limb saving appliance like an
tomato car couplers, has come into
general use. and it's partial adoption
mas III TOUR years. Notwithstanding thn
Increase In railroad mileage and en-
pioycs, decreased the injuries and
aeaths from coupling cars one-h half. the
l"nu1e 10 ADOPT and use 1t is negli-
sehce per Sc. With such an array IA
above of the terrible cost of life ana
limb by failure to use appliances r.,
AVOID coupling and uncoupling cars hy
nand I'm doing which the plaintiff waa
inJured). the small expense-nay ar
tual economy-of adopting them. and
.ne ample means the defendant pos
seSses. we cannot reverse our ruling in
Greenlee's ase. that 1t is negligence nov
Sc In any railroad company TO caise
one OF It's employees to risk his life mr.
ilmb In making couplings which can
be made automatically without risk
mis- matter or requiring these great
corporations to protect the trayelins
public. and their employees as well. nv
the adoption of all safety appliances.
winch have come into general Use IL
so important that we have gone int
the subject at this length. OrdinarilIv
owned by great syndicates out of .hc
State in which they operate, and thei,
management. at all events, removed
from any subsection to that sound nuh.
Tic opinion which Is so great n check
upon the conduct OF individuals. and
or government Itself. the sole protec.
ZION left TO the traveller and the en-
pioye alike Is the application of that
Jew Wnlcn is admins cred impartially
ana which can lay it's hand feariessly
upon the most powerful combination
and protect with it's care the humblest
inoiVidual In the land. In the present
case. the defendant has the less en-
cuse because there was uncontradicted
testimony, not only that automatic car
counlers were in general use ar tho
time Of the injury March. 1880 but
that the skeleton Drawbacks. in at
tempting to make a coupling with
which the plaintiff was injured. were
defective in that they were of different
heights from the ground. and evidence
that the cars could not have been
coupled with q stick. or in any other
manner. except by hand. No error.
ROSS v. SUMNER.
Supreme Court OF Nebraska