Home/Supreme Court of Colorado/Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. Thompson

Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. Thompson

65 Colo. 4
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedSeptember 15, 1917
DocketNo. 8626
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 65 Colo. 4 (Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. Thompson, 65 Colo. 4 (Colo. 1917).

Opinions

Mr. Justice Garrigues

delivered the. opinion of the court.

This action was instituted in the court below by Thompson, whom we will designate as plaintiff, against the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company, to obtain a judgment for damages occasioned by reason of an injury sustained by plaintiff, which he alleges was caused by the negligence of the railroad company. Judgment was entered upon a verdict returned in his favor, to review which defendant brings the case here on error.

The grounds of negligence alleged in the complaint are: That the employes of the company carelessly and negligently manipulated a hoist they were using, and carelessly and negligently failed to secure or fasten it so as to prevent it from moving, after the air hose was attached, and, the hoist being free to move and easily moved, defendant’s employes negligently and carelessly permitted it to move or to pull or draw upon the hose with sufficient force to disconnect the coupling. Plaintiff’s attorney in his brief states his position regarding the cause of the accident to be:

“That the air hose separated, or was uncoupled, because the hoist was pushed or pulled too far to the south, causing the hose to be stretched and pulled into a horizontal position, which caused the coupling to separate.”

Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a machinist in its shops at Salida, Colorado, and operated a planer, near which was a movable hoist used to lift and move machinery. This hoist was mounted on rollers and suspended from a beam or rail, on which it was moved by being pushed or pulled along. A rubber air hose 8 feet 5 inches long hung down from the hoist, and there was a stationary air pipe along the ceiling from which was suspended another piece of rubber hose 13 feet 10 inches long. At the loose ends of these pieces of hose and used to attach them together was a standard -Westinghouse air line coupling — such as is used in connecting cars for air brake service — 1 foot 9 inches long, making the total length of the hose when coupled 24 feet. The relative position of the machinery is illustrated by the accompanying sketch:

[6]*6

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Ramirez
155 P.3d 371 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2007)
Branco Eastern Company v. Leffler
482 P.2d 364 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1971)
Maryland Casualty Company v. Kravig
385 P.2d 669 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1963)
Miller v. Brazel
300 F.2d 283 (Tenth Circuit, 1962)
Mathews v. Industrial Commission
355 P.2d 300 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1960)
Stull v. People
344 P.2d 455 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1959)
National Construction Company v. Holt
322 P.2d 1046 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1958)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Industrial Commission
219 P.2d 315 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1950)
O'Connor v. Boulder Colorado Sanitarium Ass'n
111 P.2d 633 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 Colo. 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denver-rio-grande-railroad-v-thompson-colo-1917.