WHAT CONSTITUTES REASONABLY SAFE MACHINERY, &C.

tion there, and in the absence of knowledge on his part that the posts were there, he was not negligent in not looking out for them, and defendant was negligent in allowing the posts to be erected and maintained so dangerously near the track. Kearns v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 66 Ia. 599.

A switch stand, whose arrow when turned toward the track, is within nine inches thereof, was held a dangerous object. Southern &c. R. Co. v. Michaels, 57 Kan. 474.

So, as to a guy wire so close over a street car track as to endanger employés. Erslew v. New Orleans &c. R. Co., 49 La. Ann. 86.

New York &c. R. Co. v. O'Leary, 93 Fed. Rep. 737.

So, as to a pile of stones from one-half a foot to three feet high and only seventeen inches from the track near a switch, which a brakeman had to throw and then jump upon the passing engine. Donahue v. Boston &c. R. Co., 178 Mass. 251.

Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Kinnare, 91 Ill. App. 508; s. c. aff'd, 60 N. E. Rep. 57; Linck v. Louisville &c. R. Co., 107 Ky. 370; Kennedy v. Lake Superior Terminal &c. R. Co., 93 Wis. 32.

Railroad company allowed a depression to remain in its track, in which water collected and froze. Negligence was for the jury. Balhoff v. Michigan C. R. Co., 106 Mich. 606.

Whether defendant was negligent in building a section house in such dangerous proximity to a side track that the eaves struck a brakeman, descending the ladder on the side of a moving car, and whether the brakeman was negligent, were for the jury. Flanders v. R. Co., 51 Minn. 193.

Brakeman in performance of his duty put his head out of window and was injured by a water tank. Recovery was allowed. Walsh v. Oregon R. Co., 10 Ore. 250.

A stack of ties were left in such a condition as to render them liable to topple over. Recovery was allowed. Texas &c. R. Co. v. Echols, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 677.

An independent contractor was permitted to maintain a source of danger over defendants' tracks. (A derrick supported by guys fastened to an insufficient fence post.) Recovery was permitted. Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Delaney, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 427.

So, where cattle chutes were located in dangerous proximity to its tracks. Wood v. Louisville &c. R. Co., 88 F. R. 44; Keist v. Chicago &c. R. Co., (Iowa) 81 N. W. 181.

So, as to failure to prevent stones, from overhanging rocks or loose slopes of cuts, getting on the track. Clune v. Ristine, 94 Fed. Rep. 745.

So, as to the unnecessary maintenance of a water spout in dangerous

proximity to the track. Choctaw &c. R. Co. v. McDade, 112 Fed. Rep. 888.

See Pittsburg &c. R. Co. v. Parish, (Ind. App.) 62 N. E. Rep. 514, (limbs of trees allowed to so project); Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Tucker, (Ky.) 65 S. W. Rep. 453, (overhead bridge).

Employé stepped on some lumber while pushing a car and was injured by the car running over his foot. Defendant's negligence for jury. Bessex v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 45 Wis. 477.

Defendant company permitted blocks of wood, etc., to lie near its track and brakeman was injured by stumbling over them. Not safe place to work. Hulehan v. Green Bay &c. R. Co., 58 Wis. 319.

See Ditberner v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 47 Wis. 138.

Bridges and Trestles.-There were four low bridges on the defendant's road near together; warning signals were placed before the first and last, as warnings for all. A brakeman was killed at the second bridge. He had been in defendant's employ three months and knew about the bridges. Defendant not liable for failure to place warning signals to each bridge pursuant to chap. 439, Laws 1884. Ryan v. L. I. R. Co., 51 Hun, 607, rev'g judg't for pl'ff.

Citing DeForest v. Jewett, 88 N. Y. 264; Gibson v. Erie R. Co., 63 id. 449.

If a trespasser on a railroad causes an injury to the employés or passengers of the railroad company the trespasser will be liable for the damages he has thus caused.

A superstructure across the tracks of a railroad, of a height insufficient to allow brakemen on freight trains passing under it to stand on the top of the freight cars, is not per se illegal.

If it be conceded that the use of "tell-tale" signals on a bridge is so general that a failure to maintain them may be deemed negligence, even in the absence of a statute requiring their use, the duty of maintaining them devolves upon the railroad corporation whose tracks run under the bridge, and not upon the corporation whose tracks are upon the bridge. Neff v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co., 80 Hun, 394. When a railroad company constructs a covered bridge it should build it of sufficient height so that brakemen required to go on top of cars may pass under in safety. Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Johnson, 116 Ill. 206.

When a company builds a bridge over its track with knowledge that it is of insufficient height and dangerous to brakemen ignorant of the danger, it is liable for injuries resulting therefrom. Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Rawan, 104 Ind. 88.

Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Cooley, (Ky.) 49 S. W. Rep. 339.

But see, contra, Baylor v. D., L. &c. R. Co., 40 N. J. L. 23; Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Stricker, 51 Md. 47; Devitt v. Pacific R. Co., 50 Mo. 302; Pittsburg &c. R.

WHAT CONSTITUTES REASONABLY SAFE MACHINERY, &C.

Co. v. Sentmeyer, 92 Pa. St. 276; Clark's Adm'r v. Richmond &c. R. Co., 78 Va. 709; Gibson v. Erie &c. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 449. See, also, Altee v. S. C. R. Co., 21 S. C. 550.

The mere fact of a defect in a board used in the construction of a bridge, no other negligence being shown, evidence showing that all planks were tested before use, does not of itself fix liability upon defendant. Kelly v. Detroit Bridge Works, 17 Kas. 558.

Failure to erect "tell-tale" before a low bridge did not cause injury where the brakeman not only knew of the danger but got on the car after passing the place where it should have been, Allen v. Boston &c. R. Co., 69 N. H. 271.

Company need not build bridges so that servants standing upright will not be endangered. Baylor v. D., L. & W. R. Co., 40 N. J. L. 23. S. P., Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Stricker, 51 Md. 47.

Fireman leaning out of the cab of his engine struck a bridge, because of its defective condition in connection with that of the track. He was allowed to recover. Texas &c. R. Co. v. Taylor, (Tex. Civ. App.) 53 S. W. Rep. 362.

Notification of the danger is sufficient where the tracks can not be lowered and the city will not permit the bridges to be raised. Myers v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 95 Fed. Rep. 406.

Yards and Stations.-The plaintiff, three days in the defendant's employ, in coupling a car in the evening, just pushed from the scales, fell in a cattle guard. For jury. Fredenburg v. N. C. R. Co., 114 N. Y. 582, aff'g judg't for pl'ff.

A platform on an elevated railway, which is 22 feet wide, is reasonably safe without a guard rail. Nugent v. Brooklyn &c. R. Co., 64 App. Div.

351.

Failing to keep a platform, at times used as part of a weighing apparatus in switch yard, free from defects, showed negligence. Rome &c. R. Co. v. Thompson, 101 Ga. 26.

But failure to guard pits in a roundhouse which would render work about engines thereon impracticable did not. McDonnell v. Illinois C. R. Co., 105 Iowa, 459.

The duties of the foreman of the owner of a spur track to a mill required the former to stand on the steps of the mill. The fact that the place of work was beyond his ownership or control did not relieve him of the duty of making the place where the servant's duty took him, safe. Harding v. Transfer &c. Co., 80 Minn. 504.

Where a platform has been constructed with reasonable care, the master

has performed his duty. Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Baker, (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S. W. Rep. 94.

Defendant was not liable for the negligent piling of boxes on its platform by a connecting carrier, for loading in the cars, having no duty to perform in regard thereto. Carolan v. Southern P. Co., 84 Fed. Rep. 84.

Cattle on track.-Derailment was caused by a cow on the unfenced track. Injury was within the statutory liability for failure to fence and servant of company recovered. Terre Haute &c. R. Co. v. Williams, 172 Ill. 379; aff'g s. c., 69 Ill. App. 392.

Quill v. Houston &c. R. Co., (Tex. Civ. App.) 46 S. W. Rep. 847; s. c. aff'd, 48 id. 168.

Defendant was negligent in allowing cotton seed to remain near the track so as to attract cattle. Cow got on the track causing the derailment of an engine and injury of engineer. Illinois C. R. Co. v. Seamans, 79 Miss. 106.

That a cow on the track contributed to the injury did not prevent recovery, where a defect in the track was the efficient cause thereof. New York &c. R. Co. v. Green, 90 Tex. 257.

Faulty construction of a cattle pen built by another adjoining the right of way did not make defendant liable for the escape of cattle therefrom to the track, causing a wreck. Newsom v. Receivers &c., 78 Fed. Rep. 94; s. c. aff'd, 81 id. 133.

Operation of Road.-Plaintiff's intestate, riding to his work on gravel train, with other of defendant's employés, was killed by a collision with a hand car; it was claimed that if the check chains, i. e., chains to hold up truck of derailed car, had been used, the injury would not have happened. No evidence that such absence of such chains caused or contributed to the accident; even so, the workman knew of this absence and he took the risk. Not negligent to back gravel train; negligence of coemployé; rules applicable to completed road not applicable to railroad in course of construction. Carr v. North River Construction Co., 48 Hun, 266, aff'g judg't of nonsuit.

Plaintiff's intestate, working on defendant's gravel train, was killed in a collision. Charge that if the defendant had not taken proper precautions to protect its servants, it was liable even though the employé in charge of the train was negligent. Judgment was reversed as the charge did not leave it to the jury to say whether such proper precautions would have prevented injury. Hall v. Cooperstown &c. R. Co., 49 Hun, 374, rev'g judg't for pl'ff.

Defendant is negligent in sending cars over a track upon which employés are at work on others, without warning or without giving them an

WHAT CONSTITUTES REASONABLY SAFE MACHINERY, &c.

opportunity to get out of the way. Floettl v. Third Ave. R. Co., 10 App. Div. 308.

See, also, Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Butler, 56 Kan. 433; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Grubbs, (Ky.) 49 S. W. Rep. 3; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Adams, (Ky.) 51 S. W. Rep. 577; Ragland v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 49 La. Ann. 1166; Andrews v. Toledo &c. R. Co., 8 Oh. C. D. 584; Pool v. Southern Pac. Co., 20 Utah, 210; Pier v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 94 Wis. 357.

As the defendant's servants were backing a train to couple onto a sleeping car, the plaintiff, an inspector employed by the company which owned said car, had his hand caught while attempting to replace a dog in the drawhead which was out of position, and while he was in that condition the cars came together and his hand was crushed. Plaintiff's evidence tended to show that defendant's servants were warned of his position and inability to escape danger, while this was denied by defendant's witnesses. Held, that the defendant's servants, in what they did, were acting in the discharge of their duty, and that, upon the evidence, a verdict characterizing their conduct as negligent and not as criminal was proper. Rhodes v. New York Central & Hudson River R. Co., 8 Misc. 366.

An engineer failed to stop in time to avoid injury to another employed in a position of peril. But as the testimony left the question of his ability to do so, in doubt, the question of negligence was left to the jury. Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Banks, (Ala.) 31 South. Rep. 573.

Track was obscured by smoke for a distance of 250 or 300 yards. It was not due care to give but a single whistle, 50 yards before entering the bank of smoke. Woodward Iron Co. v. Herndon, 114 Ala. 191.

Moore v. Great Northern R. Co., 67 Minn. 394.

Giving each of two hand cars, 12 to 20 feet apart, at the same time signals to check their speed was not negligence per se. Alabama Min. R. Co. v. Jones, 121 Ala. 113.

Liability for negligence of an engineer in not stopping in time to avoid a trespasser whom he saw, was extended to an employé by the track who was struck by his flying body. Western &c. R. Co. v. Bailey, 105 Ga. 100.

Ordinance requiring the constant ringing of a bell within a city limits, inured to the benefit of railroad employés. Illinois C. R. Co. v. Gilbert, 157 Ill. 354.

Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Calvert, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 297.

Violation of ordinance as to speed and the ringing of the bell, is applicable as to defendant's employés on its private premises. East St. Louis Connecting R. Co. v. Eggman, 170 Ill. 538; aff'g s. c.. 71 Ill. App. 32.

Running a train without a headlight is gross negligence. Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Alsop, 176 Ill. 471; aff'g s. c., 71 Ill. App. 54.