The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1868-02-06

vi.
on the l4th September, 1866, broke down
and injured the plaintiff and others, fell
through any defect in its original plan,
or defect ia its parts at the time, that
would be such negligence on-the part of
| the Company, as would entitle the plain
tiff to their verdict.
We answer this in the negative.
Sixteenth, That the defendant is a cor
poration created by law for the transpor-
tation of freight and passengers that, as
, Incidental thereto, it Is required by the law
to keep and maintain freight and passen-
/ ger depots, platforms, &c, for the accom-
mediation ofthe public, along It's line and
road and,
Seventeenth, That any injury to one
SO being and standing upon the platform
OF such Station House, by the Company,
Is such negligence as in view of public
policy would subject the defendant to
damages, and their verdict should be for
the plaintiff.
That, gentlemen, would depend upon
| circumstances, such as who the claimant
was, and i'll what relation he stood to the
Company. AS "A proposition governing
this case we answer it in the negative.
Eighteenth, That it was the legal duty
of the Company SO 10 construct the plat
! form in question as that it would not
! break and fall from under any such nuns
! Der of persons as its surface aud general
| external appearance might invite upon it;
and that If, in fact, it be found such duty
was not performed, then that omission
was such negligence in this case as would
entitIe the plaintiff 10 their verdict.
We refuse, gentlemen, to affirm this
point.
Nineteenth, That it was not only the
duty of the Company to construct but to
keep and maintain its platform at Ibis
most public and important Station in such
complete and perfect condition as safely
! to support all such numbers of persons as
/ could stand thereon, and if the Jury be-
! lieve it was not so kept and maintained,
but broke down and injured the plaintiff,
then that is such negligence as would en-
title the plaintiff to recover.
We answer this in the negative.
| Twentieth, That Rail Road Companies
are not only bound TO erect and construct
their Station houses and platforms in the
most convenient places for themselves,
| ty of the public, and that if the Jury be-
lieye that such convenience and safety
was not fairly met in the erection Of the
Station house and platform in question,
| then that was such negligence on part of
the Company as entities the plaintiff to
| your verdict.
We answer that, also, in the negative.
Twentieth, That Rail Road Companies
are not only bound to erect and construct
! their station houses and platforms in the
most convenient places for themselves, but
also consult the convenience and safety of
the public, and that if the Jury believe
that such convenience and safety was not
fairly met in the erection Of the Station
house and platform i'll question, then that
was such negligence on part of the Com
pany as entities the plaintiff to your vcr-
dict.
We answer that also in the negative.
Twenty first, That it being the duty of
the Company to consider well and wisely
the convenience and safety of the public,
it became its duty 10 construct its. plat
form in question, at the Johnstown Sta
ton, over the Canal abyss, out of such
material and i'll such manner, and 80 to
maintain it, that no number Of persons
nor length of time cou i break or destroy
it; and that if the Jury find that this has
not beer SO done and kept, then that in
this case was such negligence as entities
the plaintiff to yonr verdict.
We refuse to affirm this point, the af-
firmation of which would be to give it con-
trolling application TO the case we have
already taken from you.
Twenty-second, That if the Jury be-
lieve from the evidence that the abyss into
which the plaintiff and others fell, on the
occasion and place in question, from the
breaking of the wooden structure spanning
it, and resulting in the injuries complained
of by him, could have been spanned or
protected by arched mason, or brick, or
either work, so as TO render it perfectly
secure, that that not being done is such
negligence of the Company as to entitle
the plaintiff TO your verdict.
We answer that point, also, in the neg
alive.
Twenty-third, That if you believe that
the Pennsylvania Railroad Company,
whether with or without compensation,
brought upon Its Road, with its motive
and other power, special train Of cars
to the JohpstoVn Station, with OF with
out bargain to pay, on the 14th Septem-
Der, 1865, and therebysujured the plant
iff without any negligence On his part,
which fact is for the Jury, then their YER
dict in this case should be for the plaintiff
If they had surrendered their train to
another party, and had injured the plant
iff under circumstances that would have
rendered the defendant, if running it, liR-
ble, this result would follow bit as this
proposition stands we do not affirm it.
Twenty fourth, That if the Jury find
from the evidence that the defendant here
(being the Pennsylvania Railroad Compa-
ny) surrendered the management and con-
troll of the special train which bore Prssi-
dent johnson and certain McMurtrie to