Case Name: JOSEPH GADDY v. THE NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1918-05-08
Citations: 175 N.C. 515
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOSEPH GADDY v. THE NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 175
Pages: 515–525

Head Matter:
JOSEPH GADDY v. THE NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY.
(Filed 8 May, 1918.)
1. Commerce — Railroads—Statutes—Federal Decisions.
Where it appears from plaintiff’s evidence, in his action to recover damages from a railroad company for a wrongful injury, that he was engaged in interstate commerce at the time, the Federal statute excludes and supersedes the State law in regard to the doctrine of assumption of risks, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States will control.
2. Same — Master and Servant — Assumption of Risks — Employer and Employee.
While under the decisions of the Federal court the doctrine is recognized that the master should furnish the servant reasonably safe tools and appliances and place to work, and to keep and maintain them in such condition, they also enforce the doctrine of assumption of ordinary risks by the employed incident to his employment, including his continuing to work without objection when he has knowledge of a defect and an apprehension of the danger which it entails.
3. Same — Evidence—Nonsuit—Trials.
Where an experienced switchman of an railroad company is injured while acting for the company in' the course of his employment, in interstate commerce, and it appears from his own evidence that he was at the time engaged with a crew in switching cars upon several diverging tracks, with full knowledge of the conditions; that after leaving a car that had been “kicked” upon one of the tracks he,, with knowledge of the approach of other cars “kicked” upon another track, was injured by his foot catching between the guard and stock rails and run over by the cars moving towards him, and to which he was walking to continue his duties as brake man; that at the time lie saw that the ears had no brafceman on them to stop them, and had seen them “kicked” upon the tract: Held, under the federal decisions, the employee assumed the risks, and a motion to non-suit thereunder should have been allowed in his action to recover damages against the railroad company.
4. Commerce — Railroads—Through Trains — Master and Servant — Employer and Employee.
A railroad switchman engaged in making up. a through train passing into, through and beyond the State is engaged in interstate commerce.
Clark, C. J., dissenting.
Appeal by defendant from Harding, J., at tbe July-August Term, 1917, of DavidsoN.
Tbis is an action to recover damages for personal injury.
Tbe plaintiff, together with five others, composed a switching crew on tbe railroad yards of tbe defendant’s lessee at Spencer, N. C., and on tbe first day of November, 1915, was switching ears and making up trains on tbe yard. About tbe hour of 12:15 o’clock p. m., tbe crew was working in tbe north end of tbe yard shifting cars and making up trains. From tbe north end of tbe yard they backed in on tbe straight lead track, which leads entirely through tbe yard and extends from Spencer to Salisbury. They coupled up to seven cars on tbe said straight lead and pulled these cars north on tbe ladder lead, which connects all the switch tracks in the north end of the yard. There are sixteen switch tracks connected with the ladder lead. The-cars are switched by being taken out on the ladder lead and the switches set for the tracks upon which the cars are to be placed, and the cars are kicked in on these tracks wherever they are desired to be placed for the purpose of making up trains.
After the crew had pulled the .cut of seven cars out on the lead they kicked one car down on the double track, which car plaintiff rode about 100 yards down the track. The engine and balance of crew then went out onto the ladder lead with the other cars for the purpose of placing these cars on other tracks. It was their purpose to put three cars of the seven attached to the engine into an orange train, which was a through freight train from Spencer, N. 0., to the Potomac Yards, Ya.
When plaintiff had set the brakes on the car which he rode down the double track, he dismounted from the car and saw the balance of the crew were cutting off three cars on the ladder lead for track No. 2 or 3. He got off the car he had stopped and walked down the main line of the railroad and crossed over to the track where the three cars were to be placed. He was about 60 feet from the cars — saw them coming down toward him; he walked toward the cars about three feet and attempted to cross the track at the switch for the purpose of getting on the cars on tbe other side. In attempting to cross the switch his foot was caught between the guard rail and the stock rail and fastened, and before he could get it out the front truck of the first cars passed over his foot, cutting off part of his foot. When plaintiff saw that he could not get his foot out he laid down between the rails and the front truck passed over his foot. He crawled from under the ear between the front and rear trucks.
Plaintiff says that he saw the ears coming toward him — saw the ears as they were cut loose when he was on top the car on double track; that there were three cars in the cut, the first car being a gondola car loaded with scrap iron, destined for Richmond, Ya.; that the said cars were rolled about 15 miles per hour; that he knew there was no one on the cars to stop them; that it was his duty to stop the cars, which was done by applying the brakes when they had rolled to the place where he wanted them to go.
Plaintiff was an experienced brakeman; had been engaged in this work at this place for eleven years; was thoroughly familiar with this kind of work; he belonged to the crew that was doing the switching and making up the trains, and he was what was called “field man”; that it was his duty to get on the cars and apply the brakes at the place he wanted to stop them; that he knew of the guard rail.
At the conclusion of the evidence the defendant moved for judgment of nonsuit, which was refused, and the defendant excepted.
The defendant also requested the court to instruct the jury to answer the issue as to assumption of risk in favor of the defendant if they believed the evidence, which was refused, and the defendant excepted.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered thereon, from which the defendant appealed.
John A. Barringer for plaintiff.
Linn & Linn for defendant.

Opinion:
AlleN, J.
Accepting the plaintiff's evidence as true, he was employed in interstate commerce at the time of his injury (see note to R. R. v. Behrens, 233 U. S., 473, 33 Anno. Cases, 165; Sanders v. R. R., 167 N. C., 379; Rich v. R. R., 166 Mo. App., 379), and the action must therefore be disposed of under the Federal statute, which is exclusive and supersedes the right of action under the State law, and which, unlike the statute in this State, recognizes the assumption of risk as a defense. Renn v. R. R., 170 N. C., 128, affirmed 241 U. S., 290.
The doctrine of assumption of risk, first recognized in the courts about 1837, when Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W., 1, was decided in England, and Murray v. R. R., 1 McMullan (S. C.), 385, and Farwell v. R. R., 4 Met. (Mass.), 49, in tbis country, is upon the idea that the employee knows and appreciates the dangers of his employment and assumes the risk of these dangers as a part of the contract of service, being paid for his risk in the increased wage, and also upon the ground of public policy, it being assumed that the employee will be more careful if he knows that he will not receive compensation for injuries received in the course of his employment.
Many of the courts, regarding the reasons upon which the doctrine is based as a fiction adopted to throw upon the employee all the hazards of the employment, have been reluctant to give it effect and have frequently taken hold upon seemingly immaterial matters to avoid its results. Consequently there is great diversity and conflict in judicial opinion as to the correct application of the doctrine, which we will not attempt to examine, as this action must be tried under the Federal law, and we are only concerned with what we conceive to be the doctrine of the Federal courts as announced by the Supreme Court of the United States. That Court enforces the rule that it is the duty of the employer to provide reasonably safe and adequate machinery and appliances' for the use of the employee and to keep and maintain them in such condition, and that a failure to perform this duty is negligence. Gardner v. R. R., 150 U. S., 349. It also holds that the employee assumes the ordinary risks incident to his employment, and that if he continues to work without objection, having knowledge of a defect and an apprehension of danger, and is injured, that this is one of the ordinary risks of his employment. R. R. v. McDade, 135 U. S., 570.
In Butler v. Frazee, 211 U. S., 459, it is held that "One understanding the condition of machinery and dangers arising therefrom, or who is capable of doing so, and voluntarily, in the course of employment, exposes himself thereto assumed the risk thereof, and if injury results cannot recover against the employer."
In R. R. v. Shalstrom, 195 Fed., 729, it is said: "Although the risk of the master's negligence and of its effect unknown to the servant is not one of the ordinary risks of the employment which he assumes, yet if the negligence of the master or its effect is known and appreciated by the servant, or is obvious, or 'so patent as to be readily observed by him by the reasonable use of his senses, having in view his age, intelligence, and experience,' and he enters and continues in the employment without objection, he elects to assume the risk of it, and he cannot recover for the damages it causes."
In R. R. v. Archbald, 170 U. S., 671, White, C. J., says: "The elementary rule is that it is the duty of the employer to furnish appliances free from defects discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care, and that the employee has a right to rely upon this duty being performed; and that while in entering tbe employment be assumes tbe ordinary risks incident to tbe business, be does not assume tbe risk arising from tbe neglect of tbe employer to perform tbe positive duty owing to tbe employee with respect to appliances furnished. An exception to this general rule is well established, which bolds that where an employee receives for use a defective appliance and with knowledge of tbe defect continues to use it without notice to tbe employer, be cannot recover for an injury resulting from tbe defective appliance thus voluntarily and negligently used."
Running through tbe cases is tbe principle that if tbe employee has knowledge of tbe conditions and tbe dangers, or if these are obvious, and be continues in tbe employment without objection, be is held to have assumed tbe risk, although be may be injured by reason of some neglect of tbe employer, and in its application it was held in Seley v. R. R., 152 U. S., 145, that a brakeman, familiar with a certain freight yard, whose foot was caught in an unblocked frog while making a coupling assumed tbe risk.
Tbe Court, after referring to several decided cases, says: "Tbe evidence showed that Seley bad been in tbe employ of tbe defendant for several years as brakeman and as conductor of freight trains; that bis duty brought him frequently into tbe yard in question to make up bis trains; that be necessarily knew of tbe form of tbe frog there in use; and it is not shown that be ever complained to bis employers of tbe character of frogs used by them. He must, therefore, be assumed to have entered and continued in tbe employ of the defendant with full knowledge! of tbe dangers asserted to arise out of tbe use of unblocked frogs.
"Appel v. R. R., 111 N. Y., 550, 19 M. E., 93, was a case where tbe plaintiff's intestate was a brakeman employed in coupling cars in tbe yards of tbe defendant at Buffalo, N. Y., and while so engaged bis foot was caught in an unblocked frog, and be was run over and killed; and tbe Court of Appeals held that 'in accepting and continuing in tbe employment, tbe deceased assumed tbe hazard of all known and obvious dangers, and that be was chargeable with notice of tbe difficulty in removing the foot when caught in tbe frog and of tbe danger to be apprehended therefrom, and therefore that a cause of action was not made out, and a refusal to nonsuit was error.' "
Tbe facts in tbe case from New York and in tbe Beley case are more favorable to tbe employee than are tbe facts in tbe case before us, as in those cases there was evidence of a defect in tbe frog in which tbe foot of tbe employee was caught, while here there is neither allegation nor evidence that tbe guard rail which caught tbe foot of tbe plaintiff was defective.
Tbe plaintiff is a man of eleven years experience; be was familiar witb tbe yards where be was working; be knew of tbe existence and location of tbe guard rail; tbat tbe cars bad been kicked towards bim; tbat they were coming at tbe rate of 15 miles an hour, and every condition wbicb bad any bearing upon bis injury was obvious and known to bim, and under tbe authorities cited we must bold tbat be assumed tbe risk of bis injury.
Tbe Beley case, witb its approval of tbe ease from New York, is also authority for tbe position tbat it is proper to enter a judgment of non-suit when tbe evidence for tbe plaintiff makes out clearly tbe defense of assumption of risk.
His Honor was in error in refusing to enter tbe judgment of nonsuit upon tbe defendant's motion, and our decision upon this question makes it unnecessary to consider tbe other exceptions. •
In Ware v. R. R., at this term, tbe plaintiff was not employed in interstate commerce, and tbe action was tried under tbe State statute, wbicb does not recognize assumption of risk as a defense.
Reversed.