This action was brought by the widow and minor children of Ira A. Tyler, deceased, for damages growing out of his death, which was caused as hereinafter indicated. Tyler was the. head brakeman on a long freight train on the road of the defendant in error, coming west, between Easton and Lester, in the state of *912 Washington. When the train reached Easton, it became necessary to ■divide it and put on two more locomotives in order to move it over the mountain. Those additional engines are called “helpers.” There was evidence given tending to show that rules and instructions for the making up and operation of trains, including the putting in of such helpers at Easton and at Eester, were posted by the company, and that the engineers of the locomotives are required to make up and operate the trains in accordance with such bulletins. H. S. Oliver was the locomotive engineer in charge of the train at the time of the accident by which Tyler lost his life. He testified, among other things, as follows:

The master mechanic testified, among other things, that under no circumstances should the engineer of the rear section move forward until the blasts of the whistles were given, and there was testimony tending to show, that in the instance in question such blasts were not given, Eolmer running, his section up at the rate of about eight miles *913 an hour, striking the engine of the middle helper, and resulting in the death of the brakeman, Tyler. The ground relied upon by the plaintiffs for recovery was that Folmer was incompetent for the position to which he was assigned.

The testimony already quoted certainly tended to show that the proper operation of the section of road where this accident occurred required, not only careful and competent locomotive engineers, but, in the breaking and making up in transit of such freight trains as that in question, engineers who understood that feature of the business. One of the witnesses for the plaintiffs — a locomotive engineer, testified :

There was testimony tending to show that Folmer was employed by the defendant in error as fireman for four years, after which he was given a switch engine in the company’s yard at Tacoma for a period of six months, and then, for something less than three months immediately preceding the accident in question, was put on the road, but not on the mountainous portion of it. Testimony was also given on behalf of the plaintiffs tending to show that while Folmer was running the switch engine in the Tacoma yard he was disciplined by the defendant in error for running his engine into a car on the switch, and that prior to his becoming an engineer he was suspended for the period of 10 days for breaking a drawbar at Easton, and that while he was a fireman he had also to be disciplined; and there was also testimony tending to show that after the accident in question Folmer was taken by 1he defendant in error from the mountain division of its road and placed elsewhere.

These circumstances of the case, taken in connection with the testimony tending to show .that Folmer started his engine with the rear section of the train before receiving notice by the blasts that everything ivas in readiness for him to start, and in connection with the speed at which he ran his engine in making up the train, entitled the plaintiffs, in our opinion, to the submission of the case to the jury. We therefore think the trial court was in error in taking the case from them.

Accordingly the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.