Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/148

 which the verdict of the jury has set the seal of truth, that. he was engaged in looking for a pin with which to make the coupling. The pin could have been found as well after he had observed the defendant's rule, that he must examine to ascertain whether there was any danger from the size of the draw-bars of the engine and of the car. The same argument would exonerate him from blame had the coupling apparatus and the deadwoods been entirely wanting. He testified that he knew every road had different cars, with different length draw-heads; that prior to the accident he did not notice the length of the drawheads of the car and of the engine; that, if he had known of the undue shortness of these draw-heads, he could have escaped injury, as there was plenty of time for him to have stepped down and out from the end of the foot-board upon the ground, so as to clear himself from the flat-car before he was hurt; and that he knew that, if two cars met upon a curve, the distance between them would be shorter on the inside than on the outside of the curve. It is clear that plaintiff made no effort to obey the rule requiring him to make an examination of the coupling apparatus. He does not pretend to have obeyed it. He disavows any such obedience. That an observance of its requests, giving it a reasonable interpretation, would have saved him from injury, cannot admit of doubt. The defects were patent; the difference between the combined lengths of these draw-bars and the combined lengths of those in ordinary use was 14 to 20 inches. The ratio was about 10 to 30. One was directly beneath his gaze; the other was almost directly before his eyes. There was time for inspection while the engine was moving slowly backwards. Further time might have been taken, if necessary, under the rule. To fail to discover, under these circumstances, that these draw-bars were only about one-third the usual length, must be negligence, particularly in view of the express warning contained in the rule, the injunction to examine so as to know the kind and condition of the coupling apparatus, and the granting of sufficient time for that purpose. When warned of the danger generally, and afforded time to pause and examine whether it existed in the particular case, the