Court Opinion

ID: 7101291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 12:16:05.872905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:13:25.048896
License: Public Domain

Rothrock, Ch. J.
It appears from the evidence that the deceased had been in the employ of the defendant for about one year. His employment was that of a shoveler in loading and unloading a gravel or dirt train. A switch was laid to a bank of earth near Avoca in the fall of 1879, and the deceased and the crew with which he was connected were engaged from that time until the accident happened in moving earth with an engine and train from the embankment, and depositing it at another point on the road. The work was done by undermining the embankment and allowing the dirt to fall, and then loading it upon the cars with shovels. This undermin*238ing was the mode adopted to bring the earth down. The accident which resulted in decedent’s death occurred in January, 1880. On that day, he, with others of the gang, was engaged in undermining the bank, and part of it fell upon him, and he was instantly killed. There is not one word of evidence that lie at any time made any objection to the manner in which the work was done. On the contrary, it affirmatively appears that he assisted in creating whatever danger there was in undermining the bank, and he must have seen and known, as clearly as anyone, the results likely to ensue from the work he and others did at the bank. The switch-track was laid, near the bank, so that the dirt could be conveniently loaded upon the cars. The evidence does not show that there was any negligence in laying it too close to the bank, or that it could have been properly laid at any greater distance from the bank.
There was no conflict in the evidence, and we think, as matter of law, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and that the court correctly directed a verdict to be returned for the defendant.
Affirmed.