The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-10-06
UNCLE SANS MAN
f.
Here in Person C. v. Ferguson
Of Commerce Commission.
BriBkmeier Case Against Mis-.
souri, Pacific in Court.
COUPLER is THE CAUSE
Case Was Argued in Supreme
Court Today.
Ferguson Claims Violation Of
Patent Appliance Safety Act.

One of the most important cases to
| railroad men. all over the United
States was argued before the supreme
! court of Kansas today-that of Henry
Brinkmeier against the Missouri Pa
cific Railway company. This is an ap-
peal of the suit brought by Brinkmeier
against the company for injuries he
received in November, 1900, while at
tempting to couple two freight cars in
the Hutchinson yards.
The case has been in the supreme
court three different times and it
promises to end in the United States
supreme court. Today the real inter-
est in the case was displayed by the
terstate commerce commission, who
argued the case in favor of the plain
tiff, Henry Brinkmeier, and in the in
terests of the government.
The question of such great concern
to the railroad men over the country
and the railroads in general is wheth-
er an employe is entitled to damages
when he is injured by an appliance
and if railroad is bound to insure
the perfection and the condition of
automatic couplerS.
Accident at Hutchinson.
1t seems that Henry Brinkmeier was
attempting to couple two freight cars
the couplerS were out of shape. He
placed his foot on the draw bars to
straighten it up and push it and hold
it in the center of the car until the
coup1ers came together. About the
time the cars came together his foot
slipped from the draw bar where he
had been holding 1t and fell between
the couplers where 1t was smashed,
and he received the injuries of which
he complained and brought suit.
The plaintiff claims that the rail-
road company should have kept the
automatic couplers in good condition
the necessity of risking life or limb.
The safety appliance act requires that
a railroad company should equip its
cars with automatic couplers and keep
them in condition. He further claims
that this coupler was not in condition
and through this defect he received
his injuries.
The interstate commerce commission,
argued the case this morning from
this standpoint This commission has
been interested in the case from the
beginning and today they presented
before the court. Congress has order
ed that the railroad place automatic
couplers on their cars and the inter-
state commerce commission is now
watching the result of a failure to keep
up the equipment.
The Railroad Contention.
The railroad company presented a
number of excellent arguments. They
claim that a railroad company is not
an insurer of the safety of it's employees
nor an insurer of the perfection of its
machinery. Il holds that a railroad
company is only supposed to exercise
reasonable care and diligence, and that
the company had performed its duty in
this case. They also claim that Brink
meier was not ordered to make this
coupling, he was in full control of his
own work, he was the only person who
had a knowledge of the defects of the
coupler, and that the railroad company
had never been given notice of the de-
fects of this car.
The case has been carried on since
1902 It was first tried then and the
court sustained q demurrer to the evil
dence introduced in behalf of the plain
tiff who brought the case to this court
where the judgment of the lower court
was reversed and the case remanded
with directions tc grant a new trial. The
Ease was again tried in October, 1905. |
n the Sedgwick county district court
and the plaintiff recovered judgment. |
The railroad company brought the case
% this court for review and the court |
below was again reversed. 1t has been
r. this supreme court three times and |
zach time it has excited intense inter- |
st among the railroad men of the |
country.
The Missouri Pacific will have a hard |
light on it's hands-a double header /
against them will make heavy argu- /
nent against the railroad company.