Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.

(orally.) In the light of the evidence, the construction by the master of the technical rules governing such causes is too narrow. The intervenor, an employe of the railway company, complained of the defective machinery, which it was the duty of the railway company to repair. In the hurry of business, in the discharge of his duties, and possibly for his personal convenience, he sought to use the machinery, which ought to have been perfect, to reach his home. The injury occurred by his using the defective step, concerning which he had theretofore complained. It'seems to the court that the doctrine of contributory negligence under the facts proved would be pushed to an extreme if the railway company could, through its neglect of duty, after due notice, be relieved from its obligations to its employes because an employe who having repeatedly given notice to *899the railway company, should, in the hurry of business, meet an accident resulting from such defective contrivance. It may be that, 'having complained of the defects, it would have been prudent on his part to observe whether the defects had been remedied; yet, in the conduct of business requiring rapid action with regard to incoming and outgoing trains, it becomes important that the employes should bo prompt and efficient for the general conduct of the commerce of the country involved in rapid and safe transit. Eailroad corporations ought not to be relieved from their obligations on which the safety of life and property depend, and on which the safety of employes also depend, by any strained or narrow rules. An employer and employe, each for the benefit of the other, and of the general public, should be held respectively to the obligations involved in the nature of the employment. Hence under the evidence presented, the exceptions by the intervenor must be sustained, and the case referred back to the master to determine the damages sustained by the inter-venor.