who has a duty or service to perform upon which the safety of others may depend, whether in the capacity of master or servant, should be under all reasonable inducements to discharge or perform it with fidelity and prudence, and that no one should be tempted to imperfect vigilance by any promise the law might make to compensate him for injuries against which his own caution might, perhaps, have protected not himself alone, but others also. The inducement to vigilance is sufficiently furnished, in the case of the master, by compelling him to respond to third persons for all injuries, whether caused by his own negligence or by that of his servants; but in the case of a servant it is supplied mainly by this rule, which, by denying him the remedy that is allowed to third persons, makes it his special interest to protect others, since it is only in doing so that he protects himself.' 1 The servant assumes not only the usual risks and perils of the service, but also such others as are apparent to ordinary observation. Gibson v. New York & Erie R. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 449; S. C. 20 Am. Rep. 552; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. State, 41 Md. 268. See cases p. *552, notes, post. See Anthony v. Leeret, 105 N. Y. 591, case of a trap door in a passage; Beittenmiller . Bergner, &c., Co., 12 Atl. Rep. 599 (Penn.), poisonous vapor; Moulton . Gage, 138 Mass 390, unrailed platform. See, also, Penn. Co. v. Lynch, 90 Ill. 333; Schultz v. Chicago, &c., Co., 67 Wis. 616; Sykes v. Packer, 99 Penn. St. 465. So the servant assumes the risk of injury from unguarded machinery with which he is familiar. Sanborn . Atchison, &c., R. R. Co., 35 Kan. 292; Schroeder v. Mich. Car Co., 56 Mich. 132; Kelley v. Silver Spring Co., 12 R. I. 112; White v. Sharp, 27 Hun, 94; Pingree v. Leyland, 135 Mass. 398; or which is patent to ordinary observation. Kean v. Detroit Copper, &c., Co., 33 N. W. Rep. 395 (Mich.); Houston, &c., Ry. Co. v. Conrad, 62 Tex. 627. See Hughes v. Winona, &c., R. R. Co., 27 Minn. 137; Cagney v. Hannibal, &c., Co., 69 Mo. 416; Porter v. Hannibal, &c., R. R. Co., 71 Mo. 66; Rummell . Dilworth, 111 Penn. St. 343; Huizega . Cutler, &c., Co., 51 Mich. 272. So the danger from falling earth in excavating. Naylor. Chicago, &c., Ry. Co., 53 Wis. 661; Galveston, &c., Ry. Co. v. Lempe, 59 Tex. 19. So in railroad service the servant assumes the risk of unblocked guard rails or frogs. McGinnis . Can. South., &c.. Co., 49 Mich. 466; Lake Shore, &c., Co. v. McCormick, 74 Ind. 440; Chicago, &c.. Co. v. Lonergan, 118 Ill. 41; Smith e. St. Louis, &c., Co., 69 Mo 32; Rush v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 12 Pac. Rep. 582 (Kan.); Wilson. Winona, &c., Co., 33 N. W. Rep. 908 (Minn.); Mayes . Chicago, &c., Co., 63 Ia. 562. But see Sherman. Chicago, &c., Co., 34 Minn. 259; Huhn . Miss., &c., Co., 92 Mo. 440. Of handling disabled cars going to the repair shop. Fraker v. St. Paul, &c., Co., 32 Minn. 54; Watson v. Houston, &c., Co., 58 Tex. 434; Barkdoll v. Penn., &c., Co., 13 Atl. Rep. 82 (Penn.); Flannagan v. Chicago, &c., Ry. Co., 50 Wis. 462. See Yeaton v. Boston, &c., Co., Injuries by Negligence of Fellow Servants. The rule which exempts the master from responsibility for injuries to his servants, proceeding from risks incidental to the employment, extends to cases where the injury results from the negligence 135 Mass. 418. Of handling cars loaded with projecting rails or logs. Nor. Centr., &c., Co. v. Husson, 101 Penn. St. 1; Toledo, &c., Co. r. Black, 88 Ill. 112; Scott v. Oreg., &c., Co., 14 Oreg. 211; Day v. Toledo, &c., Co., 42 Mich. 523. Of low bridge over the track or posts or structures close beside it, if he knows or might by ordinary care know of their existence. Baylor v. Delaware, &c., Co., 40 N. J. L. 23; Perigo v. Chicago, &c., Co., 52 Ia. 276; Balt. &c., Co. v. Stricker, 51 Md. 47; Lovejoy v. Boston, &c., Co., 125 Mass. 79; Wells v. Burlington, &c., Co., 56 Ia. 520; Clark v. St. Paul, &c., Co., 28 Minn. 128; Pittsburgh, &c., Co. v. Sentmeyer, 92 Penn. St. 276; Clark v. Richmond, &c., Co., 78 Va. 709; Illick v. Flint, &c., Co., 35 N. W. Rep. 708 (Mich). Otherwise not. Balt., &c., Co. v. Rowan, 104 Ind. 88; Louisville, &c., Co. v. Wright, 16 N. E. Rep. 798 (Ind.); Chicago, &c., Co. v. Russell, 91 Ill. 298; Ill., &c., Co. v. Whalen, 19 Ill. App. 116. See Holden v. Fitchburg, &c., Co., 129 Mass. 268; Kearns v. Chicago, &c., Co., 66 Ia. 599; Riley v. W. Va., &c., Co., 27 W. Va. 145; Nugent v. Boston, &c., Corp. 12 Atl. Rep. 197 (Me). Of too sharp curve in track in yard. Tuttle v. Detroit, &c., Co., 122 U. S. 189. Of ice or irregularity of road bed when leaving cars or coupling. Piquegno v. Chicago. &c., Co., 52 Mich. 40; Batterson v. Chicago, &c., Co., 53 Mich. 125. Of cuivert under track. Couch . Railroad Co., 22 S. C. 557; De Forest v. Jewett, 88 N. Y. 264. Of old light rails in a yard. Mich. Centr., &c., Co. v. Austin, 40 Mich. 247. But see contra,as to rails in the line. Dev lin v. Wabash, &c., Co., 87 Mo. 545. See Hulehan v. Green Bay, &c., Co., 68 Wis. 520; Rosenbaum v. St. Paul, &c., Co., 36 N. W. Rep. 447 (Minn). Of cars with double deadwoods. Smithson v. Mich., &c., Co., 45 Mich. 212; Simms v. So. Car, &c., Co., 2 S. E. Rep. 486 (S. C.); Hathaway v. Mich. Centr., &c., Co., 51 Mich. 253; and with three link couplings. Darracutts v. Chesapeake, &c., Co., 2 S. E. Rep. 511 (Va). But see Crane v. Miss., &c., Co., 87 Mo. 588; Louisville, &c., Co. v. Frawley, 110 Ind. 18. Of bucking snow. Bryant v. Burlington, &c., Co., 66 Ia. 305; Morse v. Minn., &c., Co., 30 Minn. 465. Of falling snow from a bank left near track. Dowell v. Burlington, &c., Co., 62 Ia. 629; Brown v. Chicago, &c., Co., 64 Ia. 652. Of snow plow coming over track without warning. Olson v. St. Paul, &c., Co., 35 N. W. Rep. 866 (Minn). See Kelley v. Chicago, &c., Co., 53 Wis. 74; Patton v. Centr. Ia., &c., Co., 35 N. W. Rep. 149 (Ia). See, further, that a servant by remaining without complaint in the service after knowledge of the risk from dangerous appliances or place of labor assumes it. Money Lower Vein, &c., Co., 55 Ia. 671; Mayes v. Chicago, &c., Co., 63 Ia. 562; Worden v. Humeston, &c., Co., 33 N. W. Rep. 629 (Ia.); Umbaek v. Lake Shore, &c., Co., 83 Ind. 191; Wannemaker v. Burke, 111 Penn. St. 423; Mansfield Coal Co. v. McEnery, 91 Penn. St. 185; McQueen v. Centr., &c,, R. R. Co., 30 Kan. 689; Chicago, &c., Co. v. Geary, 110 Ill. 383; Swoboda v. Ward, 40 Mich. 420. That a servant may know of the defects in an appliance without being held to of other servants in the same employment.' Whatever controversy there may for a time have been on this point may now be said, by an overwhelming weight of authority, to have been thoroughly quieted and settled.' Some disputes still remain know and accept the risk arising therefrom. See Russell v. Minn., &c., Co., 32 Minn. 230; Cook v. St. Paul, &c., Co., 34 Minn. 45; Wuotilla v. Duluth, &c., Co., 33 N. W. Rep. 551. See, also, Lasure v. Graniteville, &c., Co., 18 S. C. 275. So if he continues in service after failure to amend within a reasonable time after promise of amendment he assumes the risk. Eureka, &c., Co., d. Buss, 81 Ala. 220. Otherwise now by statute. Mobile, &c., Ry. Co. v. Holborn, 6 South. Rep. 146 (Ala.) So if one, knowing the incompetence of his fellow or superior servant, remains without complaint in the employment, he assumes the risk of injury therefrom. McDermott v. Hannibal, &c., Ry. Co., 87 Mo. 285; Kansas, &c., Co., v. Peavy, 34 Kan. 472; Hatt v. Nay, 144 Mass. 186; Lake Shore, &c., Co. v. Stupak, 108 Ind. 1. From remaining a few days the presumption is not conclusive that he takes the risk. Lyberg v. North. Pac., &c., Co., 38 N. W. Rep. 632 (Minn.) 1 The injured person may recover from his fellow servant. Rogers v. Overton, 87 Ind. 410; Osborne v. Morgan, 130 Mass. 102; Griffiths v. Woolfram, 22 Minn. 185. 2 The following cases, with numerous others, sustain the text: Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid, 3 Macq., H. L. 266; Same v. McGuire, Id. 300; Hutchinson v. Railway Co., 5 Exch. 343; Morgan v. Railway Co., L. R. 1 Q. B. 149; Brown v. Cotton Co., 3 H. & C. 511. South Carolina: Murray v. R. R. Co., 1 McMullen, 385. Massachusetts: Farwell v. Boston, &c., R. R. Co., 4 Met. 49; O'Connor v. Roberts, 120 Mass. 227. Pennsylvania: Caldwell. Brown, 53 Penn. St. 453; Hays v. Millar, 77 Penn. St. 238; S. C. 18 Am. Rep. 445. Michigan: Davis v. Detroit, &c., R. R. Co., 20 Mich. 105; S. C. 4 Am. Rep. 364; Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Dolan, 32 Mich. 510. New York: Sherman v. Rochester, &c., R. R. Co., 17 N. Y. 153; Hofnagle v. N. Y. C. & H. R R. Co. 55 N. Y. 608. Illinois: Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Cox, 21 Ill. 20; Toledo, Wabash & Western R. R. Co. v. Durkin, Admx., 76 Ill. 395. Indiana: Columbus, &c., R. R. Co. v. Arnold, 31 Ind. 174. Connecticut: Hayden . Smithville Manf. Co., 29 Conn. 548; Burke v. Norwich & Worcester R. R. Co., 34 Conn. 474. Maine: Lawler. Androscoggin R. R. Co., 62 Me. 463; S. C. 16 Am. Rep. 492. Iowa: Sullivan. Railroad Co., 11 Iowa, 421; Benn . Null, 65 Ia. 407; Missouri: Harper v. Indianapolis, &c., R. R Co., 47 Mo. 567; S. C. 4 Am. Rep. 353; Lee v. Detroit Bridge & Iron Works, 62 Mo. 565. California: Hogan v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 49 Cal. 129; McDonald v. Hazletine, 53 Cal. 35. Kansas: Kansas Pacific R. R. Co. v. Salmon, 11 Kan. 83. Ohio: Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne & Chicago R. R. Co. v. Devinney, 17 Ohio St. 197. North Carolina: Ponton v. Wilming ton, &c., R. R. Co., 6 Jones (N. C.) L. 245. Alabama: Walker v Bolling, 23 Ala. 294. Georgia: Shields . Yonge, 15 Geo. 349. Minnesota, Foster ©. Minnesota R. R. Co., 14 Minn. 360. Nha Jersey: Harrison v. Central R. R Co., 31 N. J. 293. Mississippi: Howd Miss. Cent. R. R. Co., 50 Miss. 178. Maryland: Wonder v. Baltimore, &c., R. R. Co., 32 Md. 411; S. C. 3 Am. Rep. 143; Hanrathy v. Nor. Cent. R. *which concern the proper limits of the doctrine, and [*543] what and how many are the exceptional cases. In some quarters a strong disposition has been manifested to hold the rule not applicable to the case of a servant who, at the time of the injury, was under the general direction and control of another, who was entrusted with duties of a higher grade, and from whose negligence the injury resulted.' But it cannot R. Co., 46 Md 280. Tennessee: Fox . Sandford, 4 Sneed, 36. Arkansas: St. Louis, &c., Co. v. Shackelford, 42 Ark. 417. Texas: Houston, &c. Co, Miller, 51 Tex. 270. West Virginia: Berns. Gaston Coal Co. 27 W. Va. 285. Wisconsin: Anderson v. Milwaukee R. R. Co., 37 Wis. 321. Vermont: Hard o. Vermont, &c., R. R. Co., 32 Vt. 473. Colorado: Summerhays v. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co, 2 Colorado, 484. United States: Dillon v. Union Pac. R. Co, 3 Dill. 319; Kielley v. Belcher Silver Co., 3 Sawyer, 437, 500; Halverson v. Nisen, 3 Sawyer, 462; Armour . Hahn, 111 U. S. 313. See Railroad Co. v. Fort, 17 Wall. 553. The mere fact of minority does not affect the rule. Houston &c., Co. . Miller, 51 Tex. 270; Fisk v. Cent. Pac., &c., Co. 13 Pac. Rep. 144 (Cal.) The rule has no application to a common employment merely, where the master is not the same. Svenson D. . Atlantic, &c., Co., 33 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 277; Kelly v. Johnson, 128 Mass. 530; Louisville &c., Co., v. Conroy, 63 Miss. 562, a carefully considered case. And see Muster v. Chicago, &c., Co., 61 Wis. 325. But, see, Ewan . Lippencott, 47 N. J. L. 192. Nor does the rule cover the case where two railroads by arrangement use the same track so as to make the servants of each fellow-servants. Phillips . Chicago &c., Co., 64 Wis. 475; Phila, &c., Co. v. State, 58 Md. 372; Sullivan o. Tioga R. R. Co., 44 Hun, 304; Zeigler v. Danbury, &c., Co., 52 Coan. 543. In Illinois in such case the negligence of the servants of the one master is held an ordinary risk of the business of those of the other. Clark v. Chicago, &c., Co., 92 Ill. 43. One going to his work along the tracks or from it to catch a train as ordered is in the master's service within the rule. Ewald v. Chicago, &c., Co., 36 N. W. Rep. 12 (Wis.); O'Brien v. Boston &c., Co., 138 Mass. 387. The usual rule is not changed by the fact that those who did the harm were unreasonably overworked, when that was not the cause of their negligence. Johnson v. Pittsburgh, &c., Co., 114 Penn. St. 443. Little Miami R. R. Co. v. Stevens, 20 Ohio, 415; Cleveland, &c., R. R. Co. v. Keary, 3 Ohio (N. s.) 201. See these cases explained in Pittsburgh, &c., R. R. Co. v. Devinney, 17 Ohio, (N. 8.) 197. See also, Louisville, &c., R. R. Co. v. Collins, 2 Duv. 114; Same v. Robinson,4 Bush, 507; Toledo, &c., R. R. Co., v. O'Conner's Admx. 77 Ill., 391. A conductor and the engineer of his train are not fellow servants. Chicago, &c., Co., v. Ross, 112 U. S. 377. So as to train dispatchers and trainmen. Lewis v. Seifert, 11 Atl. Rep. 514 (Penn.); Darri. gan v. New York &c., R. R. Co., 52 Conn. 285; Smith v. Wabash, &c., Co., 92 Mo. 359; McKune v. Cal., &c., Co., 66 Cal. 302. See the same rule applied to various other employees. Chicago, &c., Co. v. McLallan, 84 Ill., 109; Ry. Co. v. Lavalley, 36 Ohio St. 221; Van Amburg v. Rail [*544] be disputed that the *negligence of a servant of one grade is as much one of the risks of the business as the negligence of a servant of any other; and it seems impossible, therefore, to hold that the servant contracts to run the risks of negligent acts or omissions on the part of one class of servants and not those of another class. Nor on grounds of public policy could the distinction be admitted, whether we consider the consequences to the parties to the relation exclusively, or those which affect the public who, in their dealings with the employer, may be subjected to risks. Sound policy seems to require that the law should make it for the interest of the servant that he should take care not only that he be not himself negligent, but also that any negligence of others in the same employment be properly guarded against by him, so far as he may find it reasonably practicable, and be reported to his employer, if needful. And in this regard it can make little difference what is the grade of servant who is found to be negligent, except as superior authority may render the negligence more dangerous, and consequently increase at least the moral responsibility of any other servant who, being aware of the negligence, should fail to report it.' road Co. 37 La. Ann. 650; Moon v. Richmond, &c., Co., 78 Va. 745; Sioux City &c., Co., v. Smith, 36 N. W. Rep., 285 (Neb.); Burlington &c., Co. v. Crockett, 19 Neb. 138; Macy v. St. Paul, &c., Co., 35 Minn. 200; Boatwright v. Northeastern, &c., Co., 25 S. C. 128; Moore v. Wabash, &c., Ry. Co., 85 Mo. 588; McDermott v. Hannibal, &c., Co., 87 Mo. 285; Hoke v. St. Louis, &c., Co., 88 Mo., 360; Criswell v. Pittsburgh &c., Ry. Co., 6 S. E. Rep. 31 (W. Va.) If the master himself works with his servants and injures one of them by his negligence, he is liable therefor, and if he has partners in the business, they are liable also. Ashworth v. Stanwix, 3 El. & El. 701; Mellors. Shaw, 1 Best & S. 437; McCarragher v. Gaskell, 42 Hun, 451. See Strohero. Elting, 97 N. Y. 102. 'Persons are fellow servants where they are engaged in the same com mon pursuit under the same general control. "A foreman is a servant, as much as any other servant whose work he superintends." WILLES, J., in Gallagher. Piper, 16 C. B. (n. 8.) 669, 694. The same doctrine was declared in Wigmore . Jay, 5 Exch. 354; Feltham v. England, L. R. 2 Q. B. 33; Chicago, &c., R. R. Co. v. Murphy, 53 Ill. 336; S. C. 5 Am. Rep. 48; Summersett v. Fish, 117 Mass. 312; and O'Connor v. Roberts, 120 Mass. 227; Zeigler . Day, 123 Mass. 152. In this country it has often been declared that the grade of service of the two servants is unimportant "provided the services of each in his particular sphere and department are directed to the accomplishment of the same general end." BACON, J., in Warner v. Erie R. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 468, 470. Sce Coon v. Syracuse, &c., |
