xt73bk16mf8w_498 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73bk16mf8w/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73bk16mf8w/data/51w14.dao.xml unknown 35 Cubic Feet 77 boxes archival material 51w14 English University of Kentucky Copyright has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company and Lexington and Eastern Railway Company records Railroads -- Appalachian Region -- History. Railroads -- Kentucky -- History. [351a] C.B. Daniels v. L&E, Perry Circuit Court text [351a] C.B. Daniels v. L&E, Perry Circuit Court 2016 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73bk16mf8w/data/51w14/Box_50/Folder_1/0005.pdf section false xt73bk16mf8w_498 xt73bk16mf8w / .
b .. // V
FALL TERM. 1914. No. 400.
MASON & HURST COMPANY AND LEX-
INGTON & EASTERN RAILWAY COM- _y
PANY, - — _ — “ - — - - Appellants,
versus
BERT FELTNER, BY ETC., - - - - Appellee.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANIS.
Appeal from the Perry Circuit Court.
WOOTTON 8: MORGAN.
SAM'L M. WILSON‘
V Connect for Appellants.
BENJAMIN D. WARFIELD,
CHAS. H. MOORMAN,
Of Counsel.

 Points and Authorities.
PAGE
L 1. Statement.............................. 1
H. Plaintiff’s Petition Not Sufficient on De-
murrei‘ . . 4
Willie V. East Tenn. Coal CO., 84 S. XV. 1166.
Lexington 8; Carter County Mining Co. V.
Stephens’ AClIIlI'., 104 Ky. 504; s. c. 47 S.
\V. 321.
. Williams v. L. & N. 11’. CO., 111 Ky. 824;
s. c. 64 S. W. 738.
Baird V. Deering, 13 Ky. Law Rep. 274.
111. N0 Proof to Sustain Allegation that Plain-
tifi‘ was Employed, Directly or Indirectly,
by the Lexington & Eastern Railway Com—
1 pain 5
1 TV. No Evidence to Sustain Charge of Negli-
gence in the Operation of Boiler, which EX—
ploded.. 11
Louisville Gas Co. V. Kaufman, Straus 8: CO.,
105 Ky. 13]; s. c. 48 S. W. 434.
. \Viltshire’s Admrx. V. Kister, 156 Ky. 168;
s. c. 160 S. W. 743.
. \Vood v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph
' CO., 151 Ky. 77; s. c. 151 S. W. 29.
. Stone V. Van Noy Railroad News CO., etc,
153 Ky. 240; s. c. 154 S. \V. 1092.
V. No Sufficient Showing that, at Time Plain-
' . tiff was Injured, He was Acting in the Line
of His Duty or Performing any Duty Im:
, .‘ posed upon him by His Contract of Employ—
‘ ment, Absolutely Nothing to Show that the
, ' Negligence, if any, in the Operation of the
' '!

 ii iii -
man PAGE
Boiler, which Exploded, was not the Negli— l VII. Refusal of Instructions Offered by Defend—
gence of a Co-onmloyo and FoHow-servant Y ants _ , , _ , , , . _ . , , , . . _ , _ , , , , , , , _ _ . . , . . . , . '20
'3 . ' ' " F |
Of 1 ldlntlfi ‘ ' ' ' ' ' i ' ' ' ' i ' ' i ' ' ' i ' ' O ' i I i i I I 1') i VIII. Misconduct of Pl:1inti1't"s .A\ttornc.\' in Clos-
Mitchell-Trantor ("O- \'- Ehnictt, “5 S- \V- ing’ Argumont to .lury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
835; R. C. 55 l.. R. A. 7l0. ~ 7
Elnnctt y. l\[itchell-Trantor 00., 80 S. W. ~ 1'., & N. ]{_ CO. v. Rmnnno, 128 Ky. 90.
1148. . McHenry Coal (.70. y. Sncddon, 98 Ky. 684.
\‘Viltshire’s Adinx. y. Kistor, I56 Ky. 168; f L 8; N, R. ‘(7,‘0_ y. Payne, 138 Ky. 274,
s. c. 160 S. w. 743. ; ()wonsboro showl & Tool Co. v. Moore, 15+
Moreland’s .\dnir. y. Indian Refining Co., 146 Ky. 43]_
Ky. 760; s. c. 143 s. \\1 395. l '
S. F. Dana & Co. V. Blackburn, 121l\'y. 706; 3 IX. CONCLUSION . . ....................... ‘35
s. c. 90 S. \V. 237.
John Hanning Distilling Co. \'. Nischan’s i
Adinr., 149 Ky. 683; c. 149 s. W. 994.. I}
I.. & N. R. Co. v. Brown, 127 Ky. 741; s. C. E
105 s. W. 796; s c. 13 L. H. A. (N. s.)
1135. l
l
VI. Errors in the Instructions Given . . . . . . . . . . 17 i
(A) In the First Instruction. 1
(B) In the Second Instruction. :1
Vismnn y. Southorn R’y (30., 89 S. W. 502; ‘
s. c. 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 469. ;
Seaboard Air Line R’y Co. v. Horton, 233 J
a. (18.4924. ‘.’ . "-\ _ ‘ I .9 ,1 Mi ‘ ’ .
(C) In the Third Instruction. . /‘§?C3GE?'.? I ’. 5"!" . . l
1.. &. E. R’y co. v. Crmvford, 155 Ky. 723; i
s. c. 160 S. IV. 267. 4
South Covington & 'Cin. Str. R’y Co. V. Geis, j
135 Ky. 192; s. c. 123 S. \V. 306. l
‘ L. & N. R. Co. V. Moore, 150 Ky. 692; s. c. i
150 S. IV. 849.
(D) In the Fourth Instruction.

 t
1 Court of Appeals of Kentucky
f‘ Fall Term, 1914, No. 400.
: Mum: & 'HI'RS'L‘ Commxr AND LEXINGToN &
i 'l‘llwrlntx RAITAVAY COMPANY, — - Appellants,
l m. BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS.
i BERT FELTNER, BY Ere, - - - — - Appellee.
l ___"
l Appeal from the Perry Circuit Court.
‘ I. STATEMENT.
: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Perry Cir-
1 cuit Court for twenty—five hundred dollars, rendered 011
3 the 19th day of September, 1913, in the case of Bert
l li‘eltner by his next friend V. Mason & Hurst 0011113211133
, a partnershilz) composed of John Hurst, Robert Mason
l and L. P. Mason, and the Lexington & Eastern Railway
1 Company, a corporation. The interests of the partner-
ship named and of the railway company are not iden-
l tical, but it has been thought proper to submit a single
1 brief in behalf of all of the appellants, inasmuch as the
‘ 1 same counsel represented the partnership and the cor—
‘ poration in the court below.
The accident complained of, happened on the 15th
day of November, 1911. Suit was filed on June 18, 1912,

 l
2 I 3
and the original petition then filed, was amended on Dcmurrors wcrc interposed by the scvcrul defend—
Septembcr 18, 1913, over the objection of the defendants, ants to the petition but some were overruled and proper
said amendment having only been filed at tho conclu— “-\’C<‘I)tl0115 NW0d-
sion of the testimony for the plaintiff and after the I l“ “1“ original l’I‘IltiOU’ ”I“ PTOCiSO nature 0f the
court had overruled dcfcndants’ motion for peremptory I ‘lUt‘lP-i 1"‘(111i1"‘9];
;_ tice to permit a jury to enter the field of speculation or i ‘ THE 31501.] GEXL 15‘ 01‘ A LU'lj‘Mle‘Ol 1“
l conjecture in order to arrive at a verdict which is to de- AND FELLOlV—SERVANT OF THE PLAIN—
termine the legal rights of litigants. Appellee is not re- ‘ = TIFF.
quired to account for the fire. On the contrary, the bur-
den is upon the, appellant to show that it is in some way \Vhile there is an attempt, both in the amended peti-
ehargeable to its negligence, and this he has failed to do. f- , - _ . _- _ , . - - -,- - '
,, ‘ . . .- . , . ion and in the pioof gi\ en b} the plamtill in his own
.lhe case comes clearly within the rule announced in . .
liouisyille Gas Co. \'. Kaufman 8; Straus, 10.3 Ky. lill; behalf, to (‘StilblISl‘ tllt‘ 1’0”It that a part Of plaintiff’s I
s. c. 48 S. W. JAE—l; Hughes y. Railroad Co, 91. Ky. 526; duty was to run errands at the beck and call of the drill-
: s. c. 16 S. W. 275; \\'intuska’s Admr. y. L. & N. R. R. Co., - . , . , , . , , , , ‘ . . V
l 20 S. .“.. 819; s. c. 14 Ky. liaw Rep. 579; and numerous ‘ (is in th( tumn 1, yet th( t( 1111s and scop< of his employ—
; other cases, including the very 1.0091115 case of McDonald’s . ment and the duties embraced therein must be found from
‘ \ Admr. y. liouisville Car Wheel & R. S. (30., 149 Ky. 801; what passed between plaintiff and Mr. l‘lngle, the walk—
“ s. c. m s. W. 1142." ‘ . .. . _ .. ,7 . ., , . 5
ll , ing boss for Mason k lluist (..ompan}. It is plaml_\
: To like effect is the case of Stone y. Van Nov Rail- l stated by plaintiff on eross-examination that Mr. Eagle
road News Go, etc., 15;; Ky. 240; s. c. 154 S. W. 1092‘ l (‘~niployed him simply as a water boy (Trans. of E\'., p. ‘7)
where the doctrine under consideration is realiirmed, l and that when plaintiff asked him for a job, Mr. Engle
the court concluding its opinion with a remark which ”lid, “He didn’t know about it, ”I h“ could get a place
. may aptly apply here: “While the accident is an unfor- ll For me, he would let me know, as water boy, and he told
tunate one, defendants can not be held liable in the ab- l 1110 he would let me know by the drill runners that night;
sence of proof of negligence.” l they boarded at our house and that night they told me
i he said for me to come back.” (Trans. of EV., p. 14.)
. i

 ,5, . .-__-.. . ,.-”- , . V , .
, l
l
.l .;
u 5
I
ll
:1
E' 17
d 16
:1 . .
’l‘ . . . 7 employment of the defendants,” etc, contained in the
' Plaintiff further testifies that he had no further tall\ 5 5 5 5
l 5 _ _ r , ' hrst instruction given by the court. (Rec, p. 19.)
I With the walking boss about his employment. (l‘rans. 5 5 5 _ 5 . _ ;
i ,5 [t is further insisted in this connection, that there is
5 of luv, pp. 14, 15.) 5 5 5
I . . . . . . . — nothing to show that the negligence it any, of the per—
i Upon this showing it is submitted that when plaintiff 5 .. . 5
I _ . son or persons in charge of the operation of the steam
é undertook, as he testifies, to carry a message from one 5 5 . 5
; , _ . _, boiler which exploded, was not the negligence of fellow-
g of the drill runners in the tunnel to the fireman or engi- 5 5 _ , _5 _
i . . servants of the plaintiff engaged iii the same field of
; ncer at the honor and engine one hundred and seventy- 5 5 5 5 * 5 . 5
9 , . , labor and It this be so, manifestly, the plaintiff is not
l five or two hundred yards away troui the tunnel, that he, 5
i . . . entitled to recover, under any aspect of the case. (See
;5 was acting wholly otuSide of the scope of his eiiiploy— 55 5 555 _ 5 Y 5 5 5
, , . 5 \\ iltshire’s Adinr. \'. luster, lob By. 168; S. c. 100 S. “'.
j inent and as to said matter was simply a volunteer. lt . _ 5 5 5 ' 7
3 . .. . . .. 5 . 143; Moreland’s Admr. v. lndian Refining Co., 146 va.
: this be so, manitestly the plaintitt has no cause of action '5 O 5 S “5 5 S 51 55) (5 Bl hb ‘
i . . . . . i '76 ;s. c. H? l‘. .295- l‘. W. ‘111'1 & o. v. 10' urn
E . against any of the defendants herein. (See Mitchell- . ' S ’5 c 5‘ ‘ ’
: _ _, , _ -_ _ 1 1'3] Kv. 700 s. c. 90 C. \‘. 237- .10 in H‘innino' Distillin
’ Trantcr Co. \'. Ehmctt, (in S. \\ . 8.3;); s. c. on L. R. A. 110; l ‘ 5 ’ ’ 5 C D g
: __. ,5 Co. \'. Nischan’s Admin, 1-19 Kv. (i833; s. c. 149 S. \V. 994.
E and on second appeal the same case under style 01 Eh— ,5 5 55 5 B ' 5
. _ , _ i and i. S: N. 1. Co. v. rown 127 Kv. 741- s. c. 106 S. W.
l inett v. Mitchell—Trainer (..0., 80 S. \V. 1.1-'18.) i5 ‘55 5 R 5 \5 q ’ 3 ' ’
z .. ; T.U-s.c.]3 . .-.;..115.
‘: \\hilc as noted above, the petition charges that tho 5 ’ A (' k ) )
; plzllntl'l'f had to pass the honor in the performance of his j
‘: .. .. . ».' V i." *H ‘0 iriiiri .i “int
3 work as water boy and was iii;1ui'(3d while in the discharge ‘5 \ 1’ LRROhb 1*\ 1' UL IRSl REL 11038 (In EN
5 ol his duties as \v‘ tor bov and while as we iiiSist there ‘ . . . . .
5 s . a , , a 7 ( ) g (A) Certain errors in the first instruction given by
i is no com wtcnt iroof to sustain this 'illeoation vet if 3 . .
.5 l l ‘ ‘ 0‘ i w l the court have already been pomted out, to-w1t, the as-
: 'll(‘1'(‘\\" s ‘niv ’ ' f . 'nU‘ 'o s .‘ ‘i l 'llefr‘ .i n n) ’ - - . . .
5.:; t ‘1 ‘ - WOO undl b L “5t“ 11 t 10 ‘1 0‘1t 0 ’ t} l sumption by the court in this instruction, that there was
It issue raised 1 r the 'le'il' 10‘8 rel ecti 10‘ this essen " l 1 . .
5 ‘ 3.‘ l) ((11b ’ %p to 5 th‘ t a contract 0t employment between plaintiff and defend-
? )‘ll‘t oic l‘iintilt’s case should have been Sibmitted to ' - . -
55 l‘ p ‘ ‘ , ‘ 1 1 ant, Loxmgton N Eastern Railway Company and sec-
; the 'ui'v in '1) r0 ri‘ite instructions. Yet nowhere in . ~ - .
5 J . <1 I) l) c ’ - ..5 ondly, tailure of the court to submit to the Jury the ques-
. the instructions ‘ictu‘illv (riven to the 'urv b the court ‘ . . . . . . . . .
T_ 5 5 C ( ' O 5 5 J " y 3 tion ol whether the plaintifl was llljlll‘ed while in the
: is the question of whether plaintifi was injured while in 3 . -. . - ~ , 5 - -

, 5. 5 5 5 _ 5 5 5 5 .l discharge of his duties or while acting iii the course of
g the discharge 0t his duties or while acting in the line of I -
5 5 ‘ 5 _ ,5 his employment.
" his employment, submitted to tho ;un‘v. The onlv lan- ; , ,5 . .
'1 5 ” -' , (B) 1110 second instruction was, perhaps, unneces-
4. ("11‘10'0 iii the instructions Wiven which a roaches com— l - - - -
g r” 5‘“ _ _ _ 5 b5 ’ (pp ‘ 5 5 ,5 sary, but in any case, both inaccurate and misleading.
‘_1 pliance with this requiSite, is the phrase, “\Vhilc 1n the i
.1 1

l

 i l
l l
I I
l
i.
.i: 18 I 19
l,
i". . , .
l By this instruction the court states to the jury