56 Pa. 294 | Pa. | 1868
The opinion of the court was delivered, January 7th 1868, by
The plaintiff below, as we learn from the very brief history of the case by the plaintiff in error, no portion of the testimony being given, was injured while a passenger in the ears of defendant, by reason of the protrusion of his elbow beyond the sill of the car window next to which he sat during the journey, or part of it, coming in contact with a car standing on a switch on the defendants’ road. The plaintiff had a verdict on the ground of negligence on the part of the company, as we are informed, in carrying the plaintiff, by reason of which he was hurt, but in what the negligence consisted it is not easy to
Assuming the fact, or claiming that negligence on part of the company in performing their duty towards the plaintiff in carrying him had been proved, his counsel prayed the court below to charge as follows:—
“ A passenger on a railway car who has unconsciously suffered his elbow to slip beyond the window sill is not necessarily guilty of negligence: N. J. Railroad Co. v. Kennard, 9 Harris 203.”
Thi's the learned judge unqualifiedly affirmed, doubtless on the authority of the case referred to in the point. He did right in following the precedent cited ; even if wrong he was bound to do so. If, therefore, there was error in the instruction, it was not his fault.
That unconsciousness, arising from insensibility, the result of disease or injury, might qualify what would otherwise be negligence, may be conceded, but that would arise from the difference in the degree of care required on part of the carrier. If a passenger were known to be afflicted with epileptic fits, or was entirely insane, it would be reasonable to require of the carrier more care and attention than in the case of ordinary passengers ; but then the carrier must know the condition of the passenger, and that extra care and control wmre necessary, and his duty. This, however, we need not discuss, for nothing like this existed in this case. We must regard the remark, “unconsciously suffering his elbow to slip out beyond the window sill,” to mean inattentively. In that sense it was negligently suffered to slip. Of course, this was negligence in se, unless he was under no obligation to take care of himself. But no case asserts that, and every case the contrary. Out of the omission to do so springs the doctrine of contributory negligence, which defeats a plaintiff, and which is so firmly established as a principle of law that nobody dreams of doubting it. We have the case, then, broadly, I think, that negligence is not to be inferred, when.injury accrues from an exposure of an elbow or an arm out of a ear window, while the train is moving, if it be not wilfully done.
This cannot be maintained on any reasonable principle, we think. When a passenger on a railroad purchases his ticket it entitles him to a seat in the cars. In the seat, no part of his body is exposed to obstacles outside of the car. He is secure there, ordinarily, from any contact with them. Where he is thus provided with a seat, safe and secure in the absence of accident to the train, and the carrier has a safe and convenient car, well conducted and skilfully managed, his duty is performed towards
Here the duty of care on the part of the passenger is asserted ; and it was a case in which two passengers, the plaintiff and son, instead of leaving the cars by the platform on the station, left on the opposite side, and the son was killed by a passenger train on the other track. We held that this was negligence in se on part of the passengers, and, in the absence of eircumstanees justifying the exit on that side of the car, the court erred in not charging that it was negligence in law. The authority of this case has not been shaken in this particular. We have repeatedly held that it is the duty of courts in cases of clear negligence, arising from an obvious disregard of duty and safety, to determine it as a question of law: 2 P. F. Smith 282; 11 Casey 71; 9 Id. 318. Numerous other authorities might be cited for this: Where the inference from the facts is necessarily that there is negligence, the court ought to determine the negligence as a matter of law. Of course the assertion of the principle in this way presupposes no answer to the facts, so as to rebut the inference to be drawn, and implies that this may be done in all cases, if there be facts to that effect.
A passenger, on entering a railroad car, is to be presumed to know the use of a seat, and the use of a window; that the former is to sit in, and the latter is to admit light and air. Each has its separate use. The seat he may occupy in any way most comfortable to himself. The window he has a right to enjoy — but not to occupy. Its use is for the benefit of all, not for the comfort alone of him who has by accident got nearest to
In the absence of some justifying necessity, or incapacity to take care of himself on part of the passenger, no one can doubt, I think, from the reason of the thing, in view of the nature of the vehicle used, being a railroad car, that to extend an arm or a hand beyond the window sill is dangerous, and is recklessness
It must be admitted that the case of New Jersey Railroad Co. v. Kennard, 9 Harris 203, announces a different rule. There the plaintiff’s elbow came in contact with a post or upright of a bridge. The case was not put upon the ground that there was negligence on the part of the company in constructing the bridge, but upon the ground that the company were negligent in not placing barriers around the window to prevent passengers from exposing their limbs outside. The learned judge, Gibson, C. J., instructed the jury that a car which was not so provided was not, to use his peculiar expression, “ roadworthy.” Predicated of this idea, he held that passengers had a right to ride as they pleased, and to sit with their elbows on the window-sills, and beyond if they chose. In fact, he seems to have required no duty of care on part of the passenger in this particular; for, had he, it seems to me he would, even on his own theory of the duty of the company to barricade their windows, have come to the conclusion, if the want of it was negligence, it was also negligence on part of the passenger not to take greater care on account of the want of the precaution, and that would have been contributory negligence, which would have prevented the plaintiff from recovering.
The case was affirmed in a per curiam opinion, for the reasons given by the learned judge below, but with a reservation of approval of that which was really the ground on which the case was put. “ The language of the learned 'judge,” says the opinion, “ who presided at the trial seems to be too broad as a general principle, where he says that no car is good if the windows are not so constructed as to prevent the passengers from putting their limbs through them. But in its application to a road which in
It is not unjust to this per curiam to say that it repudiated the main ground on which the case was put in the court below, and affirmed it on a principle not in the case at all, namely, the narrowness of the passage-way under the bridge. The bridge was not built by the railroad' company. As it was over a canal, it was probably built by the canal company. The passage-way was wide enough for the cars to pass conveniently, but that is nothing to the purpose; the narrowness of the passage-way was not the ground of the recovery. The report of- the case says the “ whole question was whether the defendants were obliged to construct their ears with slats, bars, wire gauze or other barricades; so that a passenger could not put his arms out of the windows ? If the defendants did not do so, whether they are liable ?” It is evident the case was very little considered, and, in the presence of authorities cited, ought not now to be regarded as the law. It is very remarkable that it should have been said in the opinion that the doctrine of barricades about the car windows was too broad, as a general principle, but just in its application where the passage-way was so narrow as to endanger projecting limbs. This was a limitation of the principle impracticable in practice. The windows would-necessarily be the same on the entire road, if made to suit any peculiar portion of it. In this again is shown that it was not a case which had been considered much.
In conclusion, we have simply to reassert, that where a traveller puts his elbow or an arm out of a car window, voluntarily, without any qualifying circumstances impelling him to it, it must be regarded as negligence in se ; and when that is the state of the evidence it is the dirty of the court to declare the act negligence in law.
We think the court erred in answering the plaintiff’s point in the affirmative, and the defendant’s in the negative, and for these reasons the judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.
Since this opinion was delivered, the Supreme Court of Indiana has held the same doctrine, on a precisely similar state of facts, in The Indianapolis and Cincinnati Railroad Co. v. Rutherford. See Law Reg. of June 1868, p. 476.