The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-12

to the Jury wide field for speculation
and conjecture. In the absence OF some
proof on the part Of the person who sued
the company that such a rule was in OPP
Grafton by other roads, or unless
the necessity and propriety OF making
and promulgating such rule was so OBJ
vious as to make the question one OF
common experience and knowledge. the
court is not warranted in submitting such
a question 20 the jury" The court fur
vided reasonable way against the oc-
currence OF such an accident, and conse-
9nently there was no case TO present to
the jury.
Ruies Made by Employees.
The principle that an employer must
make and promulgnte rules. which. II
faithfully followed will give reasonable
protection to his employees, is a very gem
state. And perhaps the rule Us almost a.
well knowa thai rules adopted by the
employees that are not regularly put forth
by their emolover-~which. therefore, they
are not required TO obey--will not excuse
the company from doing its duty.
Watchmen TO Guard Employees.
When railroad provides watchmen to
guard employees from danger while at
work under or around car, Ii performs
its whole duty, and is not liable for an
accident caused by the negligence OF the
Waterman In not giving proper warming
to the workmen thus engaged. In case
II was shown that there were three train
men standing by a car when the accident
happened to a man who was working un-
derneath; and furthermore. that 1T was
the duty of each of them,' as an incident
TO his employment, to act as a Waterman
to protect his coemploye. The court re-
written or published regulations OF tho
company showing that they must thus
act nor did any witness testify that he
had been specially charged by any ofii-
N IA
watching for the safety of other employees
working under cars on the tracks, but
many such witnesses testified that their
duty in that behalf was we'll understood
by them and other employees of the COM
pany. 1T was a sort OF common law of
the company. obligatory upon It's en-
ployes, and as thoroughly understood by
them as though II had been embodied IN
the printed regulations and read by the
officers of the company To them. IL thus
became rule or custom OF the company,
Detached Cars.
An accident happened 10 n railroad ems
rloye In Kansas. who was injured whiie
attempting to couple cars from detached
car. The company had no established
rule or custom for notifying or warming
swtchmen working n the conpany's yard
Of the moving OF detached ears, except
that the bell Of the engine should be kept
ringing while 1t was IN motion. Tho
employee claimed that the company was
about the moving ~ such cars The su-
preme court decided that q Jury was not
justified In finding that such regulation
would be feasible or useful,
An important case of this kind has been
decided by the supreme court OF Nils souri,.
boy IL years old was employed In carry
ing water to a gang Of men who were
repairing the roadbed and in looking
after the tools. He with the foreman ana
other iaborcrs travelled In caboose car
attached 70 freight train They alight~
.sfl Mt ttfaa nd taf ~
on the main track, The foreman with thu
boy went short distance alonR the track
and then the boy was sent back 10 tho
cahoose TO notify the laborers about their
work and assist them In getting out their
tools. After doing this Just as he was
leaving the car other cars were showed
suddenly against IL, he wnS knocked on
and the cFboose ran over ais arm and leg,
badly injuring him. The cars were movsd
by the engineer and brakeman by ~"
inaneuver known az Kicking As the
engineer end brakeman we're fellow.
servants ~,tb the tovs-al working Ia thu
same service--he could not recover for
their negligence, however great. his only
chance was TO show that the company
was negligent I'm falling and emitting 10
provide any reies or regulations or sye-
tenn In such cases. The lower court rem
dered a verdict in favor Of the company.
but the court Of review regarded the mat
ter differently, remarking that one who
employs servants ~ a complex and dan
gprous business ought to prescribe proper
rules fer conducting n safely. The rail-
road cnntended that tn Joining cars. enpe~
cially lin the ease OF freight tratus. u did
not involve any unusual risk. we DON'T
said the court, faRren 10 the proposition.
IL ls certainly complex business reaur~
ing care and must be dangerous, II not
done under proper regulations. at least
so far as other servants are concerned,
where business requires them 70 IN IN and
out of the cars. liable 10 he iolted. IN
the ease ~ shuntins or kicking cars. II IN
feasible and perfectly proper ~ have aonle
rules and regulations 10 warn persons
liable To he injured. and CAGES are not
wanting whore railroad companies have
beer held liable to servants for injuries
regulations for the guidance Of the SER
wants in performing these manenvers"
These are few NJ Inc many answers 70
the question. 'sln what cases should rules
business more aafeiv1" The other glas~
ton, whether the fslie sn given case Ia
q reasonable one or not. can evidently he
answered only when II arises iaraa
number Of cases have happened which
turned on the answer 10 this question.
player reasonable or sufIiriFnS7 This "a
we have said, "a ia most cases question
~ law for the court 90 decide, IN one 90
the eases relating 10 q railroad, II WIS
held that rule which merely stated
"Iilue IN signal 10 be used hy ear In
spectoYa" was not sufficiently definite
In another raRe rule required car com
duct6rs te lock after switches whan uasi
hv their engineer This was hsld "a be a
Suffsr!sut ruiz. consequently The company
wha wa. Killed through tho neRlsri % af4
other wh0 kuew th@ rule hWs HTEiAntef 20
adjust swtrh pfarefiy
DLSzI6<<