Source: https://openjurist.org/14/f1d/277
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:49:43+00:00

Document:
Stewart, 9 Heisk. 137; FumQ.s v. Frankman, 6 N·eb.429; Brown v. Ins .. Co. 45 Mo. 221; Am. Ins·. 00. v. Lesem, 39 m.314. The motion for a new trial must be denied. . See Brockway v. Hut. Ben. L. Ins. 00.9 FED. REP. 249.
MASTER AND SERVANT-NRGLIGENCE OF FELLOW-SERVANT.
A mastcr is not relieved from responsibility in all cases when a servant is injnrcd by the negligence of a fellow-servant, but only where the servants are engaged in the same common employment; that is, in the same department of duty, not in departments essentially foreign to each other. 2. SAME-LullTLTTY FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM DEFECT IN CAR. Railroad companies are hound to use d1ile care in seeing that their cars and other rolling stock are maintained in a reasonably-safe condition; and when an cmploye,-a brakeman, for instance,-in the proper discharge of his duty, is injured from a failure on the part of the company to perform this personal duty, it is liable.
draw-bar; to assist in keeping the cars from coming together, was imperfect, it being worn away as much as a few inches. If the coal.car had not been out of repair the draw-bars would have met or bumped instead of passing, and the coupling would have been made without injury to the petitioner. This coal car, which belonged to the company and had been in use for nine years, was, it appears from the evidence, brought from Washington, Indiana, loaded with coal, the evening or the night before the accident. The, car inspector at Washington testified that he had inspected all cars on leaving that place the day before the accident, and none of them, so far as he observed, were out of repair. And three of the four car inspectors at Seymour testified that they had inspected all trains passing there from the west the same day and the night of that day, two performing the labor together during the day, and the third alone at night, and that the cars all seemed to be in proper condition. There were no car inspectors at North Vernon at this time, but one appears to have been appointed for that place some months later. This appointment was made, however, it is claimed for the receiver, on account of the great increase of business at this point after the accident. There is no evidence that the coal car, or any other cars, were inspected at North Vernon. The petitioner testified that he did not notice the condition of the coal car until he ran in and took hold of the link to make the coupling, and that he did not discover his peril until it was too late to escape. He was caught between the ends of the cars when they came together, and seriously injured in his right side and chest. The physician who was called in after the aocident, and who treated the petitioner for some time afterwards, testified that he found a depression of at least two inches on the right side, the ribs from the fifth down, on that side, being forced in that far; that he did not succeed by manipulation and bandaging in entirely removing this depression; that the right lung and the membrane surrounding it were seriously injured; that somemonths after the accident he thought, on examination, that he found anaccum'Ulation of pus in the lower part of the right lung, correp:ponding to the place of injury, and tubercular deposits in the topof this lung; ·that the petitioner was notable to work, and the chances were that he never would be. During the year prior to the accident the petitioner had an attack of lung fever, from which he seemed to recover, and again went towork. He was a man of and strength, and there was.
KIN.G tl. OHIO, EfO.) B. 00.
taincd to the petitioner the relation of master, and the neglect of his proper agent or agents to condemn the coal car and keep it oui of use until repaired was his neglect, for which he is liable. It does not appear from the evidence that the petitioner knew the coal car was out of repair when he ran in, as he was accustomed, to do, and as brakemen usually do, to make the coupling, or that, without stopping and looking before running in, he might have seen that it was unfit for use. He testified that he discovered for the first time when he was between the cars, and when it was too late to escape, that the draw-bars would not meet. Knowing that promptness in the discharge of his duties not only recommended him to his em· player, but that it was required of him, the petitioner had a. right to assume, without inspection, as he no doubt did, that the cars he was required to couple were in a proper state of repair for handling. It cannot bEr said from the evidence that the petitioner acted recklessly, or that he failed to use due care for his own preservation, and thus contributed to the injury. He earned $45 a month at his business before the accident; he is now 31 years old, and he seems to have been industrious. His injuries were such that he is not expected to recover. It is fair to assume that he will never be able to perform active labor. I allow him damages in the sum of $4,000, including medicines, Ill,6dical and board "bills, and expenses of nursing.
See McMahon v. Henning, 3 FED. REP. 353j Ross v. Ohicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 8 FED. REP. 544j Gravelle v.Minneapolis & st. L. R. Go. 11 FED. REP. 569; Miller v. Union Pac. R. 00. 12 FED. REP. 600; Dunmead v. Amer. M. & S. 00. 12 FED. RRP. 847.
TAXES-ON SECURITIEs-DUTY OJ' CREDITOR TO PAY.
Under the constitution and statutes of the state of California it Is the duty of the mortgagee to pay the tax assessed upon the value of the security held by him, and if he accepts t.he full amount due him upon the mortgage he cannot afterwards repudiate all liability for such tax, but must discharge the mortgage and all liens incident thereto, including the lien for taxes.
Demurrer to the Complaint. McAllister et Bergin, for plaintiff. Sidney V. Smith, Jr., for defendant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.