Negligence, Employer's liability. In an action by a woman employed as a car cleaner by a corporation owning and maintaining passenger cars used by being attached to trains operated by railroad corporations, against her employer, for personal injuries sustained while the plaintiff was engaged in cleaning the interior of a car of the defendant standing in a railroad yard, the plaintiff was the only witness upon the question of the defendant's liability. It was assumed by this court that her testimony warranted a finding that when she entered the defendant's employ, one week before, it was understood and agreed that she should be warned when a coupling was to be made. The plaintiff testified that while she was working in the car "an awful crash came and threw" her, that things were overturned and "the car was moved four or five or perhaps ten feet." There was no further explanation of the accident. Held, that there was nothing to show that the accident was caused in making a coupling, or to show what caused the "crash" as the plaintiff described it, or to show that it happened under such circumstances as to entitle the plaintiff to a warning; so that there was no evidence for the jury of negligence on the part of the defendant.
MORTON, J.
There was plainly evidence warranting a finding that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. The only question is whether there was any evidence warranting a finding that the accident was due to the neglect of the defendant of any duty which it owed to the plaintiff. We assume in the plaintiff's favor that there was evidence warranting a finding that when she entered the defendant's employment it was understood and agreed that she should be warned when a coupling was to be made, and that she did not therefore assume the risk of an accident occasioned thereby. But there was nothing to show that the accident was caused in making a coupling, or to show what caused the "crash" as the plaintiff descrided it, or that it happened under such circumstances as to entitle the plaintiff to a warning from the defendant. The defendant could not justly be held liable for a failure to warn the plaintiff of a collision in respect to which it had itself no notice or warning and with which it had nothing to do. It is possible, of course, that the collision was due to the defendant's own neglect. But whether it was or not is entirely a matter of conjecture.
Judgment on the verdict for the defendant.