Steam crane fixed on a trolly and propelled by steam along a set of rails, when it is desired to move it, is not a locomotive engine. ^ H., employed as a " capstan-man *' by a railway company, pro- pelled a series of trucks along a line of rails without giving the usual warning. Consequently, the plaintiff, employed in similar work a hundred yards off, was injured. The capstan was set in motion by hydraulic power communicated to it by H. from a sta- tionary engine. It was held, under these facts, that H. was a per- son who had the control of " a train upon a railway." ^ a person employed in the signal department of a railway, whose duty is to clean, oil, and adjust the points and wires of the locking apparatus along the line, under the orders of the inspector of that depart- ment who is responsible for the same, is not a person having
- charge or control " of the points.^
Alabama was the first of the American States to follow the ex- ample of Great Britain in passing an Employers* Liability Act. On February 12, 1885, the Legislature passed an act entitled "An Act to define the liabilities of employers of workmen for injuries received by the workman while in the service of the employer." This act was elaborated somewhat for the new Code of 1887, where it now stands, as follows : * —
" When a personal injury is received by a servant or employee in the service or business of the master or employer, the master or employer is liable to answer in damages to such servant or employee, as if he were a stranger, and not engaged in such service or employment, in the cases following : —
1. When the injury is caused by reason of any defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery, or plant connected with or used in the business, of the master or employer.
2. When the injury is caused by reason of the negligence of apy person in the service or employment of the master or employer who has any superintendence intrusted to him, whilst in the exercise of such superin- tendence.
3. When such injury is caused by reason of the negligence of any person in the service or employment of the master or employer, to whose orders or directions the servant or employee, at the time of the injury, was bound to conform, and did conform, if such injuries resulted from his having so conformed.
4. When such injury is caused by reason of the act or omission of any persoa in the service or emp1o3nnent of the master or employer, done or
1 Murphy v. Wilson, 48 L. T. 788.
•Cox V. Great Western Railway Company, 9 Q. B. D. 106.
- Gibbs V, Great Western Railway Company, 12 Q. B. D. 2o8w
« Civil Code, 1887, i, § 2590.