Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1858-07-01
CHARGE OF THE COURT.

road Company. la the Court of Common Pleas Of Brad
ford County.
CHARGE OF THE COURT.
This action is brought to recover damages
for injuries which the Plaintiff complains he
received, in being thrown from the Railroad
track thro' the negligence of Defendants
agents The plaintiff was passenger upon
the road, and by the terms of the contract the
defendants were bound to carry him safely,
unavoidable accidents excepted.
Railroad Companies do not become the iu-
surers of the lives and limbs of their pasSen-
gers but are bound to the highest degree Of
skill aud care for their safety They are liable
for the slightest neglect, the least imprudence,
whereby the safety of the passenger is put iu
jeopardy The law demands of the agents and
employees of the Railroad companies in behalf
of the passenger degree Of care, limited only
by human skill and foresight and failure
to come up to this standard, the law pronoun-
ces negligence. Then accidents only are re-
garded as unavoidable, which no care ard
skill could have prevented. Regard for hui
man life demands that these stringent but
Just principles should be enforced by Courts
and JurieS To hold doctrines less rigid and
exacting, would bring reprOach upon the civil
lization and christianity Of the age, cheaper
human life, and make it the sport of the
thoughtleSS or reckless men, often by habit,
grown inSensible or Indifferent to danger In
the maintainancc Of these principles society will
fnd its highest safety, and railroad Companies
ultimately their trne interest. Competing com
panics, now too often engaged in rivalship of
speed with a view to draw travel and enhance
= tl,oi, laa I1t iyi1 4ho
value of stock depend more upon the safety,
than upon the speed with which they run.
You will, gentlemen, apply these principles
to the facts of this case, and say whether or
not the accident Of which the Plaintiff com
plains, was unavoidable If so the Plaintiff
cannot recover. Every man must bear for
himself those inevitable accidents, that may
proYidentiaIy befall him but no one should
ever 20 from a court of justice unrcdressed,
where his injuries were the result Of another's
negligence. Here the presumption of the law
is against the Defendants The law presumeS
them guilty of the negligence charged in the
declaration, and the burden of proof is thrown
upon them, to establish satisfactorily to your
own minds, that the accident was unavoidable
and in no degree the result of negligence
The Court here read to the jury the point
submitted by the defendants counsel and
charged that it was substantially correct
that if the cars were not ran at a greater rate
of speed than was consistent with prudence
and safety, considering the curvature and con
dition of the road, and in view of the facts
shown in the cause, the plaintiff was not enti-
tied to recover The court could not under
take to say what rate Of speed upon this road
and at this point, was consistent with prudence
and safety That depended upon many circum-
stances, and in this case is properIya question
for the Jury under the evidence. \ railroad
track laid with unusual care and cost, and over
which viglant police is constantly kept, so
that every part of the track is carefully IN
spected after the passage of train, and before
the arrival of the next, and on which signal
stations are maintained, so that the engineer
has at all times in sight signal to assure him
of safety or warn him Of danger-up0n such
road a much higher rate of speed would be
consistent with prudence & safety, than upon
one less carefully constructed and less Ygilant-
ly managed.
The presumption of negligence is not over
thrown, and the prudence and safety of the
speed established by the mere fact that cars
had been frequently or usually run over the
Road at this point at the same speed. If so,
an end would be put to nearly all cases of this
character 1t is doubtless rare contingency,
that two accidents of similar nature to this,
occur at the same point, or in close proximity;
and it could therefore generally be shown that
the cars had run safely over given and short
piece Of the Road at the same rate of speed,
until the oecaSi0ning of the accident complain
ed Of You will, from the whole evidence in
the cause bearing upon the question, deter
mine as to the nature and cause Of this accident
If unavoidable the plaintiff cannot recover. If
the evidence fails to satisfy you that it was un-
ayoidable-if you believe it could have been
prevented by the exercise of the highest skill
and caution, then were the defendants guilty
Of negligence, and the plaintiff is entitled to
recover damages for the injuries he sustained
The measure or amount of damages from the
nature of the case, is much within the discrc-
ton of the jury discretion, however, that
must be controlled by the evidence. If you
find the plaintiffs cause of action complete, he
is entitled to recover not only such damages as
he may have sustained up to this time, but pros
pectiye damages, or such damages as you be-
lieve under the evidence, he will sustain in the
future, You may properly consider his ability to
labor and manage business prior to the iniu-
ries of which he complains, and his present
ability or inability thus to labor and embark
in business for the maintaiuance of himself and
family.
LANES TRIAL--'Tbe trial of General LANE,
Commander-in-Chief of the Kansas militia for