## Facts

- James Murray worked for the South Carolina Railroad Company as a “second fireman” on a train.
- During a trip, the crew observed a horse on or near the track; the first fireman notified the engineer, and Murray urged the engineer to stop.
- The engineer shut off steam only when closer to the horse and did not apply the brake or direct the firemen to apply it.
- The engine ran over the horse, derailed, and Murray suffered severe injuries.
- Evidence conflicted on crew duties: the first fireman and conductor indicated firemen applied the brake only on the engineer’s order, while other witnesses asserted the second fireman should apply the brake even without an order.
- The trial court instructed that Murray assumed ordinary risks of the job; the company was liable if the engineer’s carelessness exposed Murray to unnecessary danger Murray could not avoid; and the company was not liable if Murray’s own failure to perform a duty caused the injury.
- The jury returned a verdict for Murray, and the railroad appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the railroad was liable to an employee injured by the alleged negligence of another employee (the engineer) in operating the train.
2. Whether a fireman’s employment in a hazardous occupation barred recovery by assumption of risk when the accident allegedly resulted from preventable carelessness.
3. Whether Murray’s failure to apply the brake, if it was his duty to do so without orders, barred recovery as the cause of his injuries.

## Decision

- The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Murray.
- The court approved submitting to the jury whether the engineer’s delay and failure to order braking created unnecessary danger that Murray could not avoid.
- The court treated the conflicting evidence on the fireman’s braking duty as a factual question resolved by the verdict for Murray.
- The court allowed recovery where the jury could find the injury resulted from negligent operation by the person controlling the engine rather than Murray’s own breach of duty.

## Legal Principles

- An employee in dangerous work assumes the ordinary risks of the employment, but not extraordinary or unnecessary danger created by negligent operation.
- An employer may be liable when the employee controlling a dangerous instrumentality negligently manages it in a way that exposes subordinate workers to avoidable danger they cannot practically avert.
- The employer is not liable if the plaintiff-employee’s own failure to perform a recognized duty is the cause of the injury.
- Where evidence conflicts about operational duties among crew members, the allocation of duties and causation may be decided by the jury under proper instructions.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a verdict for an injured fireman, distinguishing assumed ordinary hazards from unnecessary danger caused by negligent control of the train; it permitted employer liability where the controlling operator’s carelessness could be found to have caused the injury and the subordinate employee could not avoid the danger, while preserving a bar to recovery if the injury was attributable to the plaintiff’s own breach of duty.


Murray v. S.C. R.R. Co., 26 S.C.L. (1 McMul.) 385 (Ct. App. S.C. 1841)