Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/352

 O'MEIL V. ST. LOUIS, IBON MOUNTAIM & SOUTHERN BY. 00. 337 �O'Neil V. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southebn Et. Co. �{Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. November 2, 1881.) �J. Peactice — Dbmurebk to Evidence. �If there is conflicting evidence on, ■which the jury should pass, the court can- not draw to itself the decision of what the evidence or the weight of evidence establishes. �2. Mastbr and Servant— Negligence. �An employer who introduces, without notice to his employe, new and unusual machinery, whether belonging to himself or inother, involving an unexpectp-d or unanticipated danger, through the introduction of which the employe, while using the care and diligence incident to his employment, meets with an acci- dent, is liable in damages. �3. SaME— SaME— PLBADINa. �Where an accident occurs to a railroad employe in consequence of the intro- duction of a f oreign and defectively-coastructed car into the train qn which he is employed, and he sues the railroad company for damages, he is not bound to eign car. �The plaintiff avers in his petition that, at the time of the accident therein referred to, he was a brakeman in the employment of defend- ant ; that while, in the performance of his duties as such, he was coupling a car, used and operated by defendant at the time, to a certain engine of the defendant, his hand and arm were caught between the car and engine, and crushed and lacerated so that it was necessary to amputate it between the elbow and wrist, ' and that it was amputated; that said injuries were caused by the defective, unsuitable, and dangerous apparatus and appliances for coupling said engine and car together; that the dead-woodson said car and engine were insufficient and unstable, and dangerous to plaintiff whilst coupling, by reason of their not keeping said car and engine apart and allowing the draw-heads of the engine and car to interlap, thereby catching and crushing plaintiff 's arm and hand as aforesaid ; that plaintiff was ignorant of the dangerous condition of the appli- ances for coupling said engine and car together, and that neither defendant nor its agents informed him thereof ; and that his injuries were caused by the negligence of defendant in supplying him with unsuitable, defective, and dangerous appliances with which to work in the discharge of his duty, and without any negligence on his part. �The case came on for trial October 13, 1881. It was tried before a jiury, Treat D. J., presiding. The testimony of witnesses produced on behalf of the plaintiff tended to prove the allegations of the peti- V.9.U0.6— 22 ��� �
 * allege in his petition that the accident was caused by the introduction of a for-