R. & D. R. R. v. Risdon's Adm'r

12 S.E. 786, 87 Va. 335, 1891 Va. LEXIS 76
Supreme Court of Virginia·Decided January 15, 1891·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

Lacy, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

F. P. Risdon, an employee of the plaintiff in error company, was employed on the night of the 2d of March, 1888, in the company’s yard at Charlottesville, in uncoupling cars. He had been employed as a yard-brakeman, and had had much experience as such. On the night in question a freight train arrived in the yard, and was at once put in charge of the yard-.crew, consisting of the yard-master, Keys; the engineer of the yard, Coleman, who was in charge of the yard-engine; Butler, the fireman, and Risdon, a brakeman. Keys had charge of the crew, and gave orders for shifting the crew. He directed that two cars should be placed on the track on the east side of whatis called a three-throw switch, which is fashioned according to the following diagram :

[337]*337

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

R. & D. R. R. v. Risdon's Adm'r, 12 S.E. 786, 87 Va. 335, 1891 Va. LEXIS 76 (Va. 1891).

12 S.E. 786 (R. & D. R. R. v. Risdon's Adm'r) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Riddley v. Clinchfield Coal Corp.
89 S.E. 926 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1916)
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Long
1913 OK 751 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Washington Southern Railway Co. v. Grove's Administrator
74 S.E. 148 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1912)
Southern Railway Co. v. Johnson's Administratrix
69 S.E. 323 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1910)
Wabash Railroad v. Ray
51 N.E. 920 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1898)
Chesapeake & Ohio R. R. v. Hafner's Adm'r
19 S.E. 166 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1894)
Richmond & Danville Railroad v. De Butts
18 S.E. 837 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1894)