Acts not negligent; compensation granted and a loose timber which was projecting over the edge of the platform. In view of the fact that the claimant was at work when hurt, and his attention was directed to that work so that he did not observe the projection of the timber, it was held that he had not been guilty of negligence and compensation was awarded. Re Jose Herrera, Id., p. 370. Two dirt trains were using the same dump. An empty train had left the dump and was turning the curve where the switch was located, intending to pass the switch and back into the siding to allow the loaded dirt train hauled by an engine on which the deceased was working as engineer, to go on the dump. Both trains were on the curve and in sight of each other, but running too fast to stop, resulting in a collision, in which one engineer lost his life. The Coroner's jury convened to inquire into the cause of the death and found the following verdict: "That the deceased came to his death through unavoidable accident, due to his own. fault, and that no blame can be placed on any employé or employer." The division engineer reported that the accident was not due to the negligence of the deceased and recommended payment. The Solicitor commented on the inconsistency of the Coroner's verdict and decided that under the circumstances compensation should be paid to the dependents of the deceased engineer. Re J. R. Morris, Id., p. 376. The claimant belonged to the crew engaged on a dirt unloader. As the unloader was passing the yard office on the way to a water tank he attempted to alight for the purpose of getting a drink of water. The unloader was moving at the rate of about four or five miles an hour at the time, and as he stepped down his foot got caught in some way, causing him to fall and injure himself. It appeared that unloader crews were accustomed to get off at this particular place to get drinking water, and that four or five miles an hour was not considered an unsafe speed while getting off. It appeared that there was no drinking water on board the unloader. Acts not negligent; compensation granted It appeared that the claimant had not violated any rule and that he did what an ordinarily prudent man would do under the circumstances and that therefore compensation should be awarded. Re Canu Guiseppe, Id., p. 380. Car cleaners on electric cars had been in the habit of waiting until the foreman turned off the current and called out "All right, go ahead" before starting to work. On this particular occasion the car had been standing some time after arriving at the place where it was to be cleaned and several of the cleaners started work. While doing so one of the cleaners received a shock from an over-heated wire, which knocked him off the car and he fell on the third rail and was killed. It was held that under the peculiar circumstances of the case he had not been guilty of negligence within the meaning of the act and therefore compensation was awarded. Re Francis Hight, Id., p. 389. Where a conductor was hanging on to one of the cars of a construction train moving along slowly and it appeared that there was no caboose on the train, and the conductor was in the place in question "in accordance with the usual practice' and while in such condition he was injured, it was held that he was entitled to compensation under the circumstances, as the injury was not due to his negligence or misconduct. Re H. C. Strayer, Id., p. 359. Claimant was riding on a work train on his way to do a repair job when he signalled to the engineer to slow up. While the train was still moving at a good rate of speed he stepped off and fell in such a way as to get his right arm crushed under one of the wheels of the train. It was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the man's employment. It was further held that he had not been guilty of negligence for the reason that it appeared that men in the kind of work in which the claimant was engaged, did not wait for cars to stop before they got on or off, and therefore he was not guilty of such negligence as to bar a claim for compensation. Re J. L. Du Puy, Id., p. 361. Acts not negligent; compensation granted The claimant was attempting to board a labor train to go to his work at a place which was not a regular stopping place for labor trains, but where it had become the custom for a number of men to take the train, and for that reason it usually stopped or slowed down to take down the men. On this particular day the train slowed down somewhat but did not stop and the claimant in attempting to 'get on the train lost his hold and fell in such a way that one foot was amputated and the other badly lacerated. The solicitor applied the rule that the negligence contemplated by the statute involved the idea of misconduct or voluntary or unnecessary exposure to an obvious danger. Re Francis Williams, Id., p. 372. Where a workman, following a general practice, attempted to get on a labor train while it was in motion, slipping, the wheels passed over his right foot mashing the toes, it was held that under the peculiar circumstances the man had not been guilty of such negligence as to preclude an award of compensation. Re Edward McCarthy, Id., p. 374. Where, according to a regular custom, a laborer in going to his work, got off the train while it was in motion, and losing his balance fell to the ground, his right foot going under the wheels of the car, it was held that he was entitled to compensation as he had not been guilty of negligence or misconduct. Re C. L. Short, Id., p. 375. Where a labor train on which the claimant was riding did not stop and he, with seven or eight other men got off while it was in motion, and was injured, it was held that he was entitled to compensation. It appeared that the men had been in the habit of getting off in the same way from this train at the particular place where they alighted. Re Richard Bunting, Id., p. 391. An employé was on a labor train waiting for the train to stop, when his foot slipped off the step and he, being in a weakened condition from sickness and fever, was unable to hold on with his hands until the train came to a stop. It Acts not negligent; compensation granted was held that under the circumstances he was entitled to compensation as he had not been guilty of negligence or misconduct. Re Samuel Mann, Id., p. 392. A brakeman was injured while getting on the engine. His foot slipped and he fell under the engine. It was contended that he had no right to be on the front of the train, as his position was in the middle of the train. It appeared, however, that he sometimes did work in the front of the train under the direction of the conductor. As it appeared that it was absolutely necessary that the trainmen jump on and off moving trains and hang on to them under all sorts of conditions, it was held that the man was not guilty of negligence and he was entitled to compensation. Re James Headley, Id., p. 395. An employé got on an engine to ride to a restaurant where it was usual for them to get dinner. A negro brakeman yelled to him to get off and he, being frightened jumped off while the train was in motion. It appeared to be uncertain whether or not employés had been directed to ride on engines. At any rate no such rule was enforced with any great strictness. It was held that under the circumstances compensation should be awarded as the claimant had not been guilty of negligence. Re Ernesto Gamboa, Id., p. 397. The claimant, a brakeman on a train, contended that while standing between two dump cars, connecting the air hose on the train, the engineer started the train ahead before he gave the signal to do so, and that he was knocked down and his left leg was cut off at the knee. The engineer contended that he received the signal from the brakeman to go ahead. The solicitor held that in view of the conflicting testimony he would settle the doubt in favor of the claimant, and therefore awarded compensation. Re George Clark, Id., p. 399. A fireman was requested by the conductor to make a coupling between an engine and a car because the conductor and brakeman were busy. The draw bar on the car was out Acts held to be negligent; compensation refused of repair and not in line with that of the engine. The claimant attempted to shove the drawbar on the engine to one side with his foot, so as to meet that on the car, when the engine lurched by reason of a defect in the track, and the claimant's foot was caught and crushed between the two drawbars. It was contended that it was negligence for the claimant to use his foot in making the coupling, instead of his hand, and that if he had used his hand he would not have been injured. The evidence showed and it was held that it was not unusual to make such couplings in the manner employed by the claimant and that the drawheads frequently got out of line, and that as the claimant was a fireman and not a brakeman negligence could not be imputed to him. Compensation, therefore, was awarded. Re Charles McDermott, Id., p. 368. The Solicitor cited the case of Morris v. Duluth S. S. & A. Ry. Co., 108 Fed. Rep. 747, where the Court said: "Where there is a comparatively safe and a more dangerous way known to a servant by means of which he may discharge his duty, it is negligence for him to select the more dangerous method, and he thereby assumes the risk of the injury which its use entails." In that case it was held that the fact that a brakeman chose to and did step in between cars while in motion to draw a coupling pin instead of using a lever provided for that purpose was evidence of negligence contributing to an injury resulting from his stumbling while walking between the cars. The Solicitor also cited the following cases arising under similar circumstances: Suttle v. Choctow O. & G. Co., 144 Fed. Rep. 668; Gilbert v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 128 Fed. Rep. 529 and Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Brunty, 133 Fed. Rep. 13. But he distinguished all of those cases from the one under consideration. 22. Acts held to be negligent; compensation refused. Claimant was working in a pit where what is known as a cable way skip was being raised and lowered for the purpose |