1
Anonymous:Lawyers reports annotated Volume 7 - Paperback
ISBN: 1130177815
[EAN: 9781130177817], Neubuch, [PU: RareBooksClub], ANONYMOUS,SUBJECTS, This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 1074 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 2.1in.This historic book may h… More...
[EAN: 9781130177817], Neubuch, [PU: RareBooksClub], ANONYMOUS,SUBJECTS, This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 1074 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 2.1in.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1907 edition. Excerpt: . . . 302, 52 Atl. 634. In Nord Deutscher Lloyd S. S. Co. v. Ingebregsten, Justice Dixon said, with reference to the inspection and repair of apparatus, that a rational distinction would seem to be that when the servant of all his coworkers in the operating department of the plaintiff in error below its superintendent or general manager; and for that reason the railroad company was not liable for his negligence. And in the ninth circuit it has been held by the circuit court of appeals that a train despatcher issuing orders for the movement of trains in the name of the superintendent is not a fellow servant. Northern P. R. Co. v. Mix, 57 C. C. A. 592, 121 Fed. 476. Jurisdictions, holding train despatcher to be a fellow servant. In Norfolk and W. R. Co. v. Hoover, 79 Md. 253, 25 L. R. A. 710. 47 Am. St. Rep. 392, 29 Atl. 994, a train despatcher was held to be a fellow servant of an engine man injured in a collision. That this decision is due to the peculiar condition of the Maryland decisions in extending the fellow-servant rule is shown by the fact that the court, after reviewing the Maryland decisions, in one of which it was held that the chief manager of the works, who hired and discharged the hands, kept their time, etc. , was a fellow servant of a laborer (Yates v. McCulIough Iron Co. 69 Md. 370, 16 Atl. 280), stated: In the face of these decisions, it is impossible to treat Shull as anything more than a fellow servant. The management of the division upon which he was train despatcher was not committed to him. He was a subordinate appointed by the superintendent, and, though he had charge of the trainmen and of the movement of trains on his division, and could employ and discharge flagmen and brakemen, it is far from being shown. . . This item ships from La Vergne,TN.<
- NEW BOOK Shipping costs: EUR 11.36 BuySomeBooks, Las Vegas, NV, U.S.A. [52360437] [Rating: 5 (von 5)]
2
Anonymous:
Lawyers reports annotated Volume 7
- PaperbackISBN: 9781130177817
RareBooksClub. Paperback. New. This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 1074 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 2.1in.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Pu… More...
RareBooksClub. Paperback. New. This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 1074 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 2.1in.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1907 edition. Excerpt: . . . 302, 52 Atl. 634. In Nord Deutscher Lloyd S. S. Co. v. Ingebregsten, Justice Dixon said, with reference to the inspection and repair of apparatus, that a rational distinction would seem to be that when the servant of all his coworkers in the operating department of the plaintiff in error below its superintendent or general manager; and for that reason the railroad company was not liable for his negligence. And in the ninth circuit it has been held by the circuit court of appeals that a train despatcher issuing orders for the movement of trains in the name of the superintendent is not a fellow servant. Northern P. R. Co. v. Mix, 57 C. C. A. 592, 121 Fed. 476. Jurisdictions, holding train despatcher to be a fellow servant. In Norfolk and W. R. Co. v. Hoover, 79 Md. 253, 25 L. R. A. 710. 47 Am. St. Rep. 392, 29 Atl. 994, a train despatcher was held to be a fellow servant of an engine man injured in a collision. That this decision is due to the peculiar condition of the Maryland decisions in extending the fellow-servant rule is shown by the fact that the court, after reviewing the Maryland decisions, in one of which it was held that the chief manager of the works, who hired and discharged the hands, kept their time, etc. , was a fellow servant of a laborer (Yates v. McCulIough Iron Co. 69 Md. 370, 16 Atl. 280), stated: In the face of these decisions, it is impossible to treat Shull as anything more than a fellow servant. The management of the division upon which he was train despatcher was not committed to him. He was a subordinate appointed by the superintendent, and, though he had charge of the trainmen and of the movement of trains on his division, and could employ and discharge flagmen and brakemen, it is far from being shown. . . This item ships from La Vergne,TN., RareBooksClub<
- Shipping costs: EUR 10.48 BuySomeBooks