Summary

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Texas Railway Company v. Barrett…

On the trial there was evidence tending to show that Barrett, while in the employment of the company as foreman in charge of a switch engine, and at work in the company's yard, was injured by the explosion of another engine, with which he had nothing, and was not required to have anything, to do, and which had been placed by the foreman of the roundhouse on a track in the yard, with steam up, to take out a train
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Texas Railway Company v. Barrett…

The circuit court instructed the jury, at defendant's request, 'that the master is not the insurer of the safety of its engines, but is required to exercise only ordinary care to keep such engines in good repair, and, if he has used such ordinary care, he is not liable for any injury resulting to the servant from a defect therein not discoverable by such ordinary care'
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Texas Railway Company v. Barrett…

The burden is also on plaintiff throughout to show you the extent and character of his sufferings, and the damages he has suffered by reason thereof. You must also be satisfied that plaintiff was ignorant of the defects in the boiler that caused its explosion, if the evidence convinces you that such was the case; and that he did not by his negligence contribute to his own injury.'
We think that these instructions laid down the applicable rules with sufficient accuracy and in substantial conformity with the views of this court as expressed in Hough v. Railway Co., 100 U.S. 218; Railroad Co. v.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature