Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1852-11-09
RAILROAD Law.

Justice Gibson, of the Supreme Court of Penn
sylvania, has just delivered very important de-
cision in regard to the liabilities of railroads. in
which he takes broad ground. 1t was in a case
where an acton was brought to recover the
value of COW run over by train of cars on tire
Erie Railroad. Judge Gibson's remarks relative
To the opinion Of the Court below are as follows:
The charge was accurate in its outline, but
not tits Details As has already been said, there
was no evidence OF negligence on the part of the
defendant. In another part, he even took the
fact for granted. 1.-The simple fact" he said, of
permitting, for limiting time, the COW to wan.
der on the railroad, would not, of itself, be such
negligence as to excuse all negligence on the
part of the defendant"
Had there been evidence TO raise the point, the
discretion might have beemwell enough but tho
application OF the principle in the particular in.
stance is wrong. In Sills VS.. Brown, e and p
COS, it was ruled that in cases Of accident with
carriages or ships, mutual negligence, II cOniri-
6utIUe to the INJURY, bars action for it-a prin-
CiPle enforced by this court in Simpson VS. Hand
9th Wharton, 3Il. But it was erroneous to pre-
dicate it OF a case in which the negligence was
all on the side of plaintiff:
He further charged the Jury thatifthe plain.
tiff knew his COW was wandering on the railroad.
it was his duty to drive her theTefrom He had
right to suffer her TO be there, and IL he sui
fered it knOsoing her to be there, he guilty OF
such negligence as would prevent HE recovery.
But his COW casually wandered away, ordinary
care being used to restrain her, the simple fact
of her being on the track would not excuse the
defendants negligence"
Now, the making of this gratuitous imputation
of negligence, and the ignorance of tile cows
wherea bouts, the turning point of the cause, is
the root Of the error. As the loss of The proper
ty is not penalty for the owners supineness in
the care of it, of what account is his ignorance
of its jeopardy? The responsibility of rail-
way company for all bat negligence or wanton
injury, is necessity of its creation. A train
must make the time necessary TO fulfil its en-
gagemenis with the post office and The passen.
gers and it must be allowed 10 fulfil them at the
sacrifice of secondary interests put in its way,
else 1t could not fulfil them at all. The maxim
Of "SGlus P0pult' would be inverted, and the pa
ramount affairs ofthe public would be postponed
to the petty concerns Of individuals.
Every obstruction of railway is unlawful,
mischievous and abatabIe at the cost of the au.
thor or owner of il, without regard TO his igno-
rance or intention. Itmay seem cruel 10 make
dumb brute suffer for the fault of his owner,
but it must be remembered that the lives of hu.
man beings are not to be weighed in the same
scales wi b a farmers grazier's stock; and
that their preservatien is not 10 be left 10 the
care which man takes of his uncared for cat.
tie. Allowing them to prow for their food, he
may not wash his hands Of the consequences OF
1t. In country so obnoxious TO the charge OF
indifference to human safety, it is high aud holy
charge of the Courts TO hold to their dutv, not
only those to whom it is Immediately committed,
but alsozt those by whose defaults it may be re.
motely endangered, and 10 hold them hard
We are Of opinion thatan otener Of cattic killed or
injured on railroad, has no recourse to fhe cam
PAM or its servants tat he is Iiabis Gr damage
done by them to The Company or lis passe4geTg.
Judgment reversed