Fredericks v. Erie R.Fredericks v. Erie R.
(аfter stating the facts as above). In view of the evidence, we must assume thаt the location of the drain coek was safe and proper. Bаltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Groeger,
Being placed there to he closed by hand, however, it was the duty of the defendant to see that it was fitted to the engine and maintained in such way that the application of manual force by an employеe, whose duty it was to close it, would not pull it loose in the attempt to do his work. It was to be expected that the valve in a drain coek from whiсh water dripped in cold weather might freeze and stick, and it was also tо be expected that an employee, trying to dose it under such cоnditions, would pull as hard as he thought necessary within the limit of his strength. After trying to closе it with one hand, it was perfectly natural for the plaintiff to use both, when, as hеre, the valve and fitting was so constructed that he could use both hands. It is idle fоr the defendant, after employing the plaintiff for this work, to try to excuse itself for the condition of the fitting by saying that its servant was too strong and heavy for the job it set him to do.
Common knowledge is sufficient to establish the fact that a рet coek, for the use to which this one was put, can easily be madе, fitted, and maintained in such a way that, if the valve in it cannot be closed by hand, neither the drain cock nor fitting will be broken loose by an attempt at manual closing. To have such a drain coek fitted to the engine in a way thаt the use of both hands was invited, required it to be put there, so that it would withstand a two-hand pull in order to comply with the Boiler Inspection Act as amendеd (
But the evidеnce was conflicting about the condition of the drain cock and fitting, аnd with the defendant’s evidence strongly indicating that nothing was loose after the accident we cannot take it for granted that the jury found the apрliance defective because of insecure fastening.
The plаintiff also claimed that the engine was defective because of the unsafe loe»tion of the drain cock, and the defendant requested thе court to charge “that the jwrj cannot find the engine defective on account«.: the location of the frost cock.” , Instead of complying with this request, the court left the question of safe location to the jury, with some general remarks to the effect that it should not consider purely mechanical arrangement, but should determine whether the appliance was safe to operate, and proper and safe for the sеrvice in which it was to be used. When, as in this case, the evidence was ovеrwhelming that the drain coek was located in the only place that it could be put and work properly, and that such location was of necessity uniformly used on lifting injectors by railroads in the territory where the plaintiff was hurt, it was error to permit the jury to call into play its own ideas as to a safe and proper location, and allow it to find the engine defectivе because the drain cock was not placed, perhaps, where the jury thought it should have been put. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Banker (C. C. A.)
Judgment reversed.