I
4U FEDERAL REPORTER.
than these, it seems to me very clear that the defendant cannot be charged
with negligence in leaving an unfenced ash heap adjoining its coal shaft.
The demurrer will be sustained.
VAN Avnmr ·v. Umor: Pm. Rv. Co.
· (Ufroult Oourl, D. Colorado. May 7, 1888.)
Masrnu Aim Smnv.»n~rr—Wuo Ann Fnnnow-SnnvArz·rs—LocoMorrvn Euerrcmms.
. Locomotive engineers are fel1ow—servants, and in Colorado the company
employing them is not liable for personal injuries resulting to one from the ·
negligence of another in a collision} . ,
At Law. Action for damages for personal injuries. On demurrer to
` the complaint.
Browncdr Putnam, for plaintiff.
Teller Jo Omhood, for defendant.
Bnmwmt, J. In this case there is a demurrer to the complaint, and
the question presented is really only this: Whether an engineer is a co-
employe with another engineer in the sense of that rule of law which re-
lieves a railroad company from responsibility for the negligence of one
co-employe. The old rule unquestionably was that all employes, even
the superintendent and general manager, were simply co-employes of
the one master. . , That has beenlimited by repeated adjudications. Of
course, this court is bound to follow the rulings of the supreme court of Q
the United States, and in the case of Randall v. Railroad C0., 109 U.S..
478, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 322, a question arose of this kind: The party ine,
jured was an engineer, the negligent party was a brakeman employed on
another engine, and the court unanimously held that they were co-em-
ployes. There was no complete definition in that case, and yet, as giv-
e ing certain rules which determined whether the party injured and the.'
. party doing the injury were co-employes, the courtsays this: , '
"They are employed and paid by the same master, the duties of the two
bring them to work at the same place at the same time, so that the negligence
of one in doing the work mayinjure the other in doing his work. Their sep-
arate services have an immediate common object—the moving of trains;
neither works under the orders or control of the other; each by entering into
a contract of services takes the risk of the negligence of the other in perform-
ing. his services."
There it was an engineer on one train and a brakeman employed on
another. Here it is an engineer on one engine and an engineer on an-
— other. The duties of the two brought them to work at the same place
at the same time; the negligence of the one might and did injure the
*See, c0nvrq,TRai1road Co. v. Ackley, Sig.) 8 S. W. Rep. 691. As to who are fellow-
Eegygnpskgge 59-olcott v. Studebaker, 34 e . Rep. 8; McMaster v. Railway Co., (Miss.)