Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/372

 § 3G8.J THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. Liability of corporation where it owes no special duty. corporation is the cause of the servant's injury, the carelessness of a co-servant in the same matter will be no defence. 1 § 367. Hitherto we have been considering the liability of corporations for negligence or misfeasance of their employes, which causes the breach of some special duty owing by the corporation. To render a corpo- ration liable for the negligence of its employes, how- ever, it is not essential that the duty, a breach of which is caused by the negligence, should be a special duty arising from the contract. Enough, if it be the general duty owed by a corporation to all the world : sic utere tuo ut alienum non Icedas. A corporation will be liable for all injuries and losses occasioned to any one by the negligence of its employes in any matter connected with their employment. 2 § 368. For instance, it is the duty of a railroad corporation, for a breach of which it will be responsible, to warn companies persons on a highway crossing its road, by proper and timely signals, of the approach of trains. 3 And if a flagman has been uniformly stationed by the company at a street crossing, his neglect to give warnings will be imputable Holden v. Fitc'nburg R. R. Co., 129 Mass. 268; Farwell v. Boston and N. R. R. Co., 4 Met. (Mass.) 49; How- land e. Milwaukee, etc., Ry. Co., 54 Wis. 226; Osbourne v. Knox, etc., R. R. Co., 68 Me. 49; Blake v. Maine Central R. R. Co., 70 Me. 60; Pitts- burgh, Ft. W. and C. Ry. Co. t>. Devinney, 17 Oh. St. 197; N. & W. R. R. Co. v. Houchins, 95 Va. 398; McDonald v. N. & W. R. R. Co., 95 Va. 98. See Haugh v. Railway Co., 100 U. S. 213; Rounds v. Carter, 91 Me. 535. Also, Wharton on Negli- gence, 2d ed. §§ 224 et seq. A day laborer at work on the road under direction of section boss, is a fellow servant with conductor and engineer of a passenger train. Railroad Co. v. Ilambly, 154 U. S. 349. See N. E. R. R. Co. v. Couroy, 175 U. S. 323. 1 Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Cumniings, 106 U. S. 700; Keegan v. Western R. 352 R. Co., 8 N". Y. 175; Booth v. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 38; Stetler v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 46 Wis. 497; S. C, 49 Wis. 609. 2 See Denver S. P. and P. R. R. Co. «. Conway, 8 Col. 1. s Dyer v. Erie Ry. Co., 71 N. Y. 228. But compare Vandewater v. New York, etc., R. R. Co., 135 N. Y. 583. It is not enough to absolve the com- pany in all cases that the signals required by statute have been given; other precautions may be necessary under the circumstances. lb. Com- pare Chicago, B. and Q. R. R. Co. v. Stumps, 69 111. 409; Continental Im- provement Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161 ; Railroad Co. v. Houston, ib. 697. But a failure to give the warning required by statute constitutes negligence. Central R. R., etc., Co. v. Litcher, 69 Ala. 106.