The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1853-06-15
Liability of a Railroad Co. far Injuries OF


An important decision in regard to this mat
ter has beeu rendered by the Supreme Court of
the United States, in the case of Elias II. Der
by rs. the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
Company, in affrmance Of previous decision
of the Circuit Court in the same case.
Derby was u stockholder in the said Com
pany, and was travelling on their road by invi-
tation OF the resident, not in the usual passen-
ger cars, but in a small locomotive car used for
the convenience Of the officers Of the company,
and paying no fare for his transportation. A
collision occurred with another engine belong
ing to the same company, which was by gross
negligence, and contrary to express orders given
to the driver, moving the same track, in the
opposite direction, and by his accident Derby
was materially injured. The court held that he
was entitled to recover.
The reason, upon which the decision Of Judge
Grier in this case were founded, seem to fully
warrant his conclusions.
The counsel for the company urged that in.
asmuch as no contrast had existed between the
parties, the defendants could not be made liable
for an injury wholly undersigned on their part
But the Court insisted that the Company was
liable in accordance with the maxim that ssthc
superior must respond"
The matter is liable for the acts of his serv-
ants irrespectively of any contrast express
implied, or any other relation between the in
jured party and the master.-lf one be lawfully
on the street or highway and anothers
ant carelessly drives stage carriage
| against him. and injuries his property or person,
it is no answer to an action against the master
for such an injury either that the plaintiff was
riding for pleasure or that be was s'ockhoider
in the road or that he had not paid his toll, or
| that he was the gue1 ofthe defendant, or riding
in N carriaue rowed from him
The counsel for the company also urged tina,
inasmuch as the engineer who had been forbid
den to run on the track at the time of the acci
dent, and had in so doing acted in disobedience
to orders, the company were not liable.
This point was also overruled by the court
The law was laid down in accordance with the
| case of Heath VS.. Wilson, 60 Car, & Payne
| COZ In that case servant having his mas
ter's carriage and horses in his possession ano
control, was directed to take them to certain
place, but instead of doing so, he went in an
| other direction to deliver parcel of his own
and in returning drove against an old woman
| and injured her. Here the master was held Ii.
able for the act of his servant, though at tn.
time he committed the offence he was acting il
disregard of his masters orders, because tht
master had entrusted the carriage to his contro
and care, and in driving it he was acting in Il
course OF his employment.--lf, without his mas
ter's knowledge and consent, he had taker
! the carriage out of the stable and therewitl
committed an injury contrary decision wcult
have been made, and on this ground that tn,
master had not intrusted the servant with tn,
property When the master has so entruste,
the servant, it is no excuse that he has beer
guilty Of mismanagement, otherwise the ruiz
! that "the superior must respond" would be an
nulled d-.7merican Railroad Journal