The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-01-28

n better position to judge OF the steps nece0SsS
II be ,sken TO avoid those dangers.
Where, therefore, both parties are SHOWN 70 20
in fault, or where the injured party Is proven ~
have been guilty Of SEINE negligence. some Imply
dence or carelessness. It will be your du.y W nc
termne whether the negligence, imprudence of
carelessness was the direct cause OF tne scclaen,
and when it is shown that the impruoence VI sIe
passenger only contributed partially 70 tne acci-
dent you will have to determine from tnS evf
dence whether the defendants, admitting the I'M
prudence of the passenger. could not, BY the ex-
ercise of reasonable diligence, have prevented tno
injury.
cause the passenger is guilty Of some careless.
ness not proven H. have been the direct cause OF
the accident, but merely contributing thereto the
company is still responsible, IT, with the exercise
of reasonable diligence and ordinary care on us
side, the accident would not have happened. inis
is the logical consequence OF the principle mann
tanned by the Supreme Court Of our State IN the
case already referred to, that the railroad compa-
MES implicitly assumed the duty of protecting the
lives and limbs of their passengers. 1t is the doc
trine taught by Judge Story, who says, in speak
ing Of passenger carriers: AS they undertake.
| for the carriage of human beings whose lives,
| and limbs, aud health, are of great import
| snce, az well 10 the public as TO
| themselves, the ordinary principle IN criminal
cases. where persons are made liable for personal
| wrongs and injuries arising from slight neglect,
| would seem to furnish the true analogy. IL has
| been accordingly held that passenger carriers
| bind themselves 10 carry safely those whom they
| take into their coaches as far as human care and
| forethought will CO. that is, for the utmost care
| and diligence of very cautious persons, and OF
| course they are responsible for any, even the
| slightest neglect, These are the words of one
| Of the most enlightened Judges who ever sat on
| the bench of the Supreme Court of the United
| States and they convey the exact measures OF
| the obligations which the law imposes upon pas
senger carriers. These. principles, governing
the case of imprudence on one side
and fault on the other. were again al
| frmed by our Supreme Court, in the case OF
Hill Va. Opelousas Railroad, and that Of Chopin
| vs.. Cerrollton Railroad. Where train Of cars was
not stopped at one of its regular stations and
passenger for thai station jumped out whilst the
train was in motion and injured himself, 1t was
very properly bNd by the Supreme Court tina
the direct causeof the injury was the act OF thu
| passenger, and TIE failure to stop at the statiol
| was only the rewhte cause. Hence they consid
| cred the company blamless.
To recapitulate II, from the evidence, you ar
| satisfied that theparticular act of negligence o
| imprudence shown to have been committed BY
the injured party was not the direct cause OF the
accident, and, notwithstanding his carelessness
and imprudence, the company could by the ex-
ercse of reasonable diligence and care have pre-
| vented the accident, and that the company did
not exercise that reasonable diligence and care,
| then the company is liable.
Should you determine the facts of the case in
favor Of plaintiff he is entitled TO damages and it
Is your duty to aasess the amount which shall be
| allowed him. You will recoect that the plain.
| TN sues Tor the cement oil tne orphans OF lnlS un
| fortunate ACCIDENT, and these children are enu
ted If you find the facts in their favor, to repara
ton for the loss they have sustained. The specia
| damages consist of the disbursements rendered
| necessary by the injuries received, and the gen
| eral damages are those which you may give with
| out proof Of any particular item.
But damages purely and simply vIndictiye can
not be allowed, unless malicious intent is shown
| or where negligence is so gross as TO justify thu
belief that 1t ives willful. You may take into
| consideration the relation between the partiei
| who have died Of their injuries and those VIII,
| seek damages at your hands. Some If not all q
| you, are doubtless fathers, and your knowledge o.
the duties and obligations OF parents toward ther
children of the age Of those for whom this suit Il
brought, will afford safe guide in estimating tn,
| loss they have suffered by the untmely death o
| their father and mother.
But whilst you consider the loss to these or
phans, you will recollect that justice is expected
| at your hands ard that sympathy for them mus
| be tempered with justice to the defendant. As
have already had occasion to say to you, in affix
ing punishment TO crime the law recognizes
minimum and maximum. The judge is allow
ed the discretion of passing a sentence which 10
graduated according 70 the circumstances of ths
case. You have the same discretion.
Gentlemen OF the jury, the case is now in YOU
hands. You may retire 10 consider your verdict;
and when you have finished your deliberations
and have agred upon verdict you may return.
The names Of the jury are W. j. Salter, FORE
man Jos. SCHNEIDER, Thos Burke, M. Garrett, A.
| G. Kicks, VIM. Bash, Richard Herrick, Peter c.
Lambert, David Lopez, Frederick Hendricks,
Martin Waaee, Dr. Calder, and their verdict:
Verdict in favor of plaintiff, Alfred G. Knight,
tutor, for the use and benefit of the minor child
rem, as follows Katie, Fife, George and Charles
knight, children of George F. knight, in the sum
of $4,000.
.