Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Leitch, 276 U.S. 429 (1928)

U.S. Supreme Court, (April 09, 1928)

Docket number: 98
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/20025979
Id. vLex: VLEX-20025979

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Text:

U.S. Supreme Court CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. v. LEITCH, 276 U.S. 429 (1928)

[Page 276 U.S. 429, 431]

witnesses for the petitioner with greater plausibility make it appreciably more. If there is to be a standard in these cases, and if, as decided, the general rule is that the engineer takes the risk, the railroad should not be made liable for this class of injury except where some unquestionable disregard of obvious precautions is shown. The plaintiff here as in Berkshire's Case well knew of the existence of the crane, which had been in place for three or four years. He was an experienced engineer and although here as there presumably he never had measured the distance, he like Berkshire knew the fact that threatened danger. At the trial Leitch testified that he was looking to see the position of a block signal, pointedly contradicting a statement that he dictated and signed near the time of the accident. He admitted however that it was the fireman's business to look out for the block and notify him, and the fireman's more favorable position for seeing and other circumstances sufficiently indicate that there was no great or sudden emergency, if that would affect the case. Without discussing the evidence in detail we are satisfied upon a consideration of it that it does not show grounds for making an exception to the general rule.

Judgment reversed.

Other documents:
Richard L Colantuoni and Carol L Colantuoni Plaintiffs Appellants v Alfred Calcagni & Sons Inc. Et Al. De... | Unpublished Disposition Notice: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(C) States that Unpublished Orders, Judgments, and Explanatory Memoranda May N... | 55 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 21, 54 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,288 Doris Taggart, Appellan... | paris mostrara la nueva cara del arosa | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia Malaga Andalucia Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo of September 20 2001 | resolucion de 24 de octubre de 1988, de la direccion general de la funcion publica, por la que se publica la relacion provis... | Hacienda abre una inspección fiscal especial a todos los implicados en la estafa de Irún | ANUNCIO de la Audiencia Provincial de Huesca relativo a recurso de apelación 180/2001. | Resolución de la Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir por la que se convoca concurso del Proyecto 09/04 de defensa de la localidad de Gines frente a las inu... | Anuncio de adjudicacion de contrato de obra publica. | ANUNCIO por el que se da publicidad a la adjudicación del contrato relativo a la asistencia técnica para la redacci...