Etchison v. Lusk

<p>1. RAILROADS: Negligence: Relationship Sustained Between Parties: Care Required. Action against a railroad for injuries ococcasioned' by the manner in which defendant’s servants handled certain cars. In order to establish actionable negligence, the manner in which the cars were handled is of small consequence unless the injured party can show a relationship existing out of which a duty arose to such party not to handle the cars as they were handled.</p> <p>2. -: -: -: Who Not Trespasser. Action against a railroad for injuries, the result of a fall in a car occasioned by another car being violently pushed against it. Plaintiff’s son and wife were employed by the defendant company to cook for its bridge gang. Plaintiff was living with her son in one of the cars assisting him about his work. She was not a trespasser as regards duty of defendant for her safety merely because of not having executed a release concerning women on such cars where she did not know of such rule and the foreman of the bridge crew who had charge of the train knew that she was assisting her son at his work and had no reason to believe that she knew of such rule.</p> <p>3. -: —:-: Licensee Wi.th Interest. Where one sustains the relationship of a “licensee with interest” to a railroad company, such relationship entitles him to the exercise of ordinary care from the servants of that company.</p> <p>4. -: -: -: -: Plaintiff’s son and his wife were engaged in cooking and performing other duties on defendant’s train in which defendants’ bridge crew boarded. Plaintiff assisted the son in such work and made her home with him on the train with knowledge of defendants’ foreman in charge of the train, though she received no pay from her son or from defendants. As regards the duty of defendants to exercise reasonable care for her safety, she was a licensee with an interest.</p>