| Show a n UI OF THE EMPLOYER United States Stales Court of o Appeals Renders Important Decision in iii S P Ry Plain Plaintiff tiff tf in Error EITor vs YS Katie Yeargin St St Louis Lout Mo April Apri an r In Jo tue Ihu employ of oC the company when he lie h welt well knew that a risi rl WUI was vu assumed by does not relieve the time employer of ot responsibility If It ned acl occur This IH Is 11 tIme the gist glit of or an ni opinion handed down dOln by the United UnIte States 1 court cour of ot appeals appals in the tIme ease of ot otIle time the Ile Southern plaintiff In Imi Il err l t Katie Kate as aim iK ad mimi of ot the estate of ot T J Year Yeargin gin Chi Jer dla ami u The TIte Ihl suit Hult was WIH originally filed ft 1 In the time federal court of or Utah Itah by hy Katie Year Yeargin Yeargin gin who I to tover for tor tIme tho death lenth or of tier who WIS an n engineer 11 ma th the Southern rail ram road mud until k in tl l in Ia collision with wih n a l 1 engine In Imi the lower court was given KIel for tor Mm Mrs Yeargin Year ln anil atil all from rota this the compan on a One Omme of ot tho than which de tie fondant the judge to give Ivl the tle JUI ue y was that engIneer of ot the help helper er tr wan vas a n fellow servant and It It was yaa WIS proved that his hh fault caused cau etl the tho Injury th tine plaintiff could coull not recover The Thc lower court refused ed Judge Amos er who wrote the tho opinion of the time appellate court held that the lower court coull was correct In Iii II this and said tint that tl If I the site helper engine haul hall had hada hat a which have beta seen leen two miles und mind u am 1 halt half Instead In teall of nile onu that Ihal could be seen only anI yards Year Yeargin Yeargin gin might have haXo seen It In time lma to tu hart 1 stopped hIs hil train trin and the tw HC itt C The TIme trial court lied tuiO to I Instruct the time Jury Jut JUI that if it I knew that lia t It I wal as the practice e of time the nd ant company compan to use an ordinary lantern on the tho rear of at tl n R gino elne when It WI ou en lie with this llila 1 10 Wih un lint ih th thi risk IncIdent t to tL It I stu l thAt If it such I was wan upheld able alle wal to avoid tho Iho It Sim el u perform ance nce of oC the dut duty they uti uWe im ID to their t lr em m ploy I to i c cure itt n providing them with ut 1 tIlt ith tools anti ami w safe and to Ia the uses to which Ih to 10 l be applied y are The Tho opinIon slated that I as time the record no lower louver the decision of the th could would be the th Jud Judge railroad Sanborn dIssenting hell held hel that company not guilty of ot negligence but that the tho tha a was caused by the act of ot n mu fellow f lov anti and that accordingly the cm case ea d have hl ve been revered y St SI Louis Mo April Apri there ther Is a u comparatively sato safe and a maca dangerous suny WiY known to t L servant by means of ot which he lie le may diScharge e his duty ut It Is II negligence fur him to 10 select elect the tho more inure uro dangerous and ad ho thereby assumes 1 the risk of ot the toe Injury which Its Is use uso entails So 80 held huid the United Stat States I court of ot ap op peals in tn the tho opinion cour down dawn In the case cose of ot John Morris o plaintiff in error against the tIme Duluth South Shore Atlantic Railroad Halrold company ap pealed from the United States s circuit d lt court for tor time the th district of ot Minnesota MorrIs sued IId for lor damages for the th loss Ios of oC a n leu kg I while coupling cars charging the railroad company comp nr with 11 negligence nce The rho decision of ot the lower low r court ourt for fee the defendant d was sustained d |
