Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/723

 GRAVELLE V. JIINNEAI'OUS <Ss ST. LOUIS iii. CO. ili �Gravelle V. MiNNBAPoiiis & St. Lol'is Ey. Co. �{Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.) �1. Negligencb. �Negligence is the f allure to exercise that degree of caution which a min of ordinary intelligeace would exercise under the circumstauces of a particular case. �2. CoNTBiBiTTony Nbgligencb — Action Dbfeated. �In case of personal injuries inflictcd by railroad cars in motion, where the plaintifl's negligence coatributed to his injuries, he cannot recover. S. Injuiiibs through Nbqliqencb of a Fellow-Seuvakt. �A railroad company is not liable for injuries inflicted on a person through the negligence of a fellow-servant of such person. Fellow-servants or co-ser- vants, within this rule, are persons engaged in the samecotnnion service under the same general control. Where one servant is invested with control or supe- riority over another with respect to any particular part of the business, they are not, with respect to such business, fellow-servants within the meaning of the law. �4. Emplotbr and Employe — Oontract — ^Legal Implications. �When a person enters into the service of another he assumes all the ordinary rislis incident to the employment, and the employer agrees, by implication of law, not to subject the servant he employs to extraordinary or unusual perils or dangers, and that he will furniah the employe with reasonably safe and convenient machinery with which to perform his duties. �5. Kailkoad Companiks — Phbsumptions as to Employes and MACHmBUY. �The law presumes that railroad companies employ for their service persons of reasonable competency and fltness for their duties ; and this pre.sumption exists till the company is notlfled of their incompetency and unfltness. The same rule substaatially applies to the question of the sufflciency of the ma- chinery employed. �At Law. �Action for damages for personal injuries sustained by an employe through alleged negligence of a railroad company. Pending on mo- tion for new trial. �C. K. Davis and A. B. Jackson, for plaintiff. �J. D. Springer, for defendant, �MoCkaby, C. J., (charging jury.) The case which you are now called apon to consider, so far as the facts are concerned, is one in which Mr. Jeremiah Gravelle, the plaintiff, alleges that he has been injured in his person by the negligence of the defendant. You will see at a glance that the main question is a question of negligence. and that question you are to consider in the light of what I shall say to you concerning the law. �The plaintiff claims that he was employed as a laborer in the yards of the defendant, the Minneapolis & St. Louis Eailway Company, at ��� �