Home/Fourth Circuit/Richmond Locomotive Works v. Ramsey

Richmond Locomotive Works v. Ramsey

131 F. 197, 65 C.C.A. 503, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4277
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 12, 1904
DocketNo. 508
StatusPublished

This text of 131 F. 197 (Richmond Locomotive Works v. Ramsey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Richmond Locomotive Works v. Ramsey, 131 F. 197, 65 C.C.A. 503, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4277 (4th Cir. 1904).

Opinion

McDOWEEE, District Judge.

This was an action at law, brought by the defendant in error, who will be hereafter designated as the “plaintiff,” for damages for personal injury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in behalf of the plaintiff for $2,917.50. The Richmond Eocomotive Works, to be hereafter designated as the “defendant,” had some months previous to the accident to the plaintiff let to contract the work of tearing down certain parts of its building and erecting others in lieu thereof. The contractor sublet a part of the work to one Wilson, by whom the plaintiff was employed at the time of the accident. Wilson’s men had been at work for some weeks, and the plaintiff, who had also been on the work previously, had been engaged for about a week prior to the accident. The work at which the plaintiff was engaged was in tearing down a brick wall of the old boiler house, which ran at right angles to the erecting shop. The drawing opposite shows the partially demolished brick wall which the plaintiff was tearing down, the ladder on which he was standing at the time, which is leaning against the western wall of the erecting shop, and one of the rails on which ran a crane, which was constantly used in the erecting shop. The crane tracks were about 600 feet in length, and some 39 feet apart. The man who operated the crane was in a cage suspended under the bridge or axle of the crane, on the far side of the erecting shop, and nearly under the more distant rail, with his head about 18 inches beneath the level of the rails. The crane was used for hoisting and carrying heavy machinery and materials from place to place in the erecting room.

On the morning of the accident, Cole, foreman of Wilson, the subcontractor, directed the plaintiff, a negro laborer 23 years old, to go up on the ladder and throw off the bricks composing the boiler house wall to be removed. The plaintiff ascended the ladder until he stood on the third round from the top. He then turned so that his face was towards his work, put his left hand over the crane rail, and, stooping forward and towards his right, commenced to pull out and throw down the bricks with his right hand. While he was in this position, the crane, which was moved slowly from the south (right side of drawing), ran over the plaintiff’s hand, and injured it and his forearm to such an extent that the arm had to be amputated. The crane operator did not know of the plaintiff’s position until after the injury. The plaintiff knew that the crane was frequently and almost constantly moved up and down the erecting room.

There is a conflict of testimony as to whether the ladder was put in the position shown in the drawing by the plaintiff under Cole’s direction, or whether it had for some days been standing as shown. There

[199]*199

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

Related

St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Schumacher
152 U.S. 77 (Supreme Court, 1894)
The Martello
153 U.S. 64 (Supreme Court, 1894)
Rider v. Syracuse Rapid Transit Railway Co.
63 N.E. 836 (New York Court of Appeals, 1902)
Montgomery v. Lansing City Electric Railway Co.
29 L.R.A. 287 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1894)
Fonda v. St. Paul City Railway Co.
74 N.W. 166 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1898)
Kirtley v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
65 F. 386 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1895)
In re Camp
91 F. 745 (N.D. Georgia, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 F. 197, 65 C.C.A. 503, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richmond-locomotive-works-v-ramsey-ca4-1904.