Case Name: The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. William Carey, Defendant in Error
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1897-07-10
Citations: 90 Kan. 437
Docket Number: No. 9,963
Parties: The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. William Carey, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. William Carey, Defendant in Error.
No. 9,963.
HEADNOTE BY THE REPORTER.
Negligence — Defective Locomotive — Notice of Defect. Where a railroad fireman is injured by the breaking of a locomotive on account of a defect in its construction, and the broken parts-had been constructed in defendant’s own shops, and the defects must have been obvious to those engaged in the work, the defendant is liable.
Appeal from Neosho district court.
Opinion filed July 10, 1897.
Affirmed.
A. A. Hurd, Owen J. Wood, both of Topeka; and J. L. Denison, of Erie, for the plaintiff in error.
S. C. Brown, and C. A. Cox, both of Chanute, for the defendant in error.
Note. — This case was not officially reported (58 Kan. 815, 49 Pac. 662) when the opinion was filed, and is reported here because it is cited in the case of Barker v. Iron Works Co., ante, p. 430.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The defendant in error was a fireman in the service of the plaintiff in error. The machinery of the engine upon which he was running broke, on account of a defect in its original construction, causing him severe injuries, for which he sues. The broken parts had been constructed in the company's own shops, by its own employees, and the defects in question must have been obvious' to those engaged in the work. ' In such cases the master is without doubt liable for resulting injuries.
There is nothing in the claim of contributory negligence, set up by the plaintiff in error, either as matter of fact or in the rulings of the court below; nor is there in the claim that a more specific answer should have been returned by the jury to a certain special question.
The judgment' of the court below is, therefore, affirmed.