YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
WRIGHT

U.S. | 1914-12-14
No. 218
235 U.S. 376 Supreme Court of the United States (1914) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 59 L. Ed. 277 · 35 S. Ct. 130 · SCDB 1914-039 · 1914 U.S. LEXIS 979
Cited by 18 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A railroad engineer died after his train collided with improperly positioned coal cars in a rail yard; the engineer had relied on his fireman's assurance that the cars were clear before the fireman discovered they were not and jumped from the locomotive. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the facts did not support applying the assumption of risk doctrine because the engineer had no knowledge that the cars were obstructing his track and had reasonably relied on the fireman's information, making this a case of contributory negligence or fellow servant liability rather than assumed risk.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice White.

Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by

Mr. Chief Justice White.

While this second appeal rest's on the Employers’ Liability Act, there is no contention as to its meaning (207 Fed. Rep. 281); hence we need only determine whether plain error was committed in relation to the principles of general law involved.1

Error in holding that the facts afforded no ground for the application of the doctrine of assumption of the risk is the sole contention pressed in argument. A freight train of which the deceased was engineer, proceeding southward on a lead track, approached or was traversing a railroad yard. Ahead — the distance not. being specifically defined — on a yard track connecting with, and to the left of, the lead track there stood some loaded coal cars which, while visible to the engineer from the right side of the engine, became more and more shut off from his view as the train advanced. The engineer asked the fireman, who was on the left side of the engine and therefore in full view, of the cars, whether they were clear of the lead track and was answered that they were. There is a dispute as to whether a head brakeman was riding in the cab and whether subsequently, if there, he called the engineer’s attention to the fact that the coal cars were not clear. But there is no dispute that the engineer again asked the fireman who answered that the cars were not clear and jumped from the locomotive.. The engineer, having shut off his power, stepped to the left side where from the collision which immediately resulted he received the injuries from which he subsequently died.

Whatever may be the difficulty of distinguishing in many cases between the application of the doctrine of assumption of risk and the principles of contributory'negligenee, that there is no such difficulty here is apparent since the facts as stated absolutely preclude all inference that the engineer knew or from the facts shown must be presumed to have known that the coal cars were protruding over the track on which he was moving and deliberately elected to assume the risk of collision and great danger which would be the inevitable result of his continuing the forward movement of his train.1 The impossibility of deducing assumption of the risk from the facts stated is cogently demonstrated by the arguments advanced to establish that the risk was assumed. Thus it is urged that as in a railroad yard there was danger to arise from the protrusion of cars negligently placed by-employes of the company, a danger which the engineer must have known might arise, therefore he assumed the risk of such danger. And again the argument is that even although the engineer did not know of the protruding cars and therefore did not consciously incur the great risk to result from the collision, yet as by proper precaution he could have discovered the fact that the cars were protruding, he must be considered to have assumed the risk which resulted from his want of care. But both these arguments have no relation to the doctrine of assumption of the risk apd only call for the application of the principle of contributory negligence or of fellow servant.

Affirmed.

Chicago Junction Ry. v. King, 222 U. S. 222; Seaboard Air Line v. Moore, 228 U. S. 433; Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317; Southern Railway v. Gadd, 233 U. S. 572, 577.

Union Pacific Railway v. O'Brien, 161 U. S. 451; Texas & Pacific Railway v. Archibald, 170 U. S. 665; Texas & Pacific Railway v. Behymer, 189 U. S. 468; Choctaw, Oklahoma &c. R. R. v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64; Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester &c. Ry., 205 U. S. 1, 12; S. C., 220 U. S. 590; Seaboard Air Line v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492, 503-504.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1957)
    …nt for plaintiff affirmed. Southern R. Co. v. Bennett, 233 U. S. 80; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Southern R. Co. v. Gadd, 233 U. S. 572; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. 1914 Term. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Wright, 235 U. S. 376; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. McGovern v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 235 U. S. 389; directed verdict for defendant reversed. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Centr…
  • Cent. Vt. Ry. Co. v. White, 238 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1915)
    …Those assignments, therefore, under Jud. Code, § 237; Rev. Stat., § 709, will not be reviewed on a writ of error to a state court. Seaboard Air Line v. Duvall. See also Chicago Junction Ry. v. King, 222 U. S. 222 and Yazoo & Miss. R. R. v. Wright, 235 U. S. 376, which state the rule where similar cases are brought here by writ of error to a Federal court. Judgment affirmed.…
  • Grand Trunk W. R. Co. v. Boylen, 81 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1936)
    …rged with the assumption of the danger and risk from this obstruction, whose presence at that time and place he had no reason to anticipate. Kanawha, etc., R. Co. v. Kerse, 239 U.S. 576, 36 S.Ct. 174, 60 L.Ed. 448; Yazoo & Miss. V. R. Co. v. Wright, 235 U.S. 376, 35 S.Ct. 130, 59 L.Ed. 277; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Scanlon (C.C.A.) 259 F. 137; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Hall (C.C.A.) 243 F. 76. That the truck and platform were not appellant’s property can make no material difference. It was appella…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (12 total)

View all 12 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw