The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-01-28
Sixth District Court for tine Parish
of Orleans.
Knight VS.. The Pontchartrain Railroad
Company.

the PontchartIain railroad came to an end yester-
day. The case was one Of damages instituted by
the infant heirs of Mr.. and Mrs. knight, their
parents, for the amount of sixty thousand dollars.
Mr.. Knight was one of the most enterprising and
excellent citizens of New Orleans. Mrs. Knight
was virtuous wife, devoted mother and lady
of the first responsibility. The wife and husband,
with their four children, the youngest only three
weeks old, started, on Sunday afternoon, to take
trip to the lake. They went to the depot cor.
ner of Levee and Girod streets, and whilst Mr..
knight was on the car, and his wife on the plat
form, handing the children over, the catastrophe
took place. When Mrs. knight had handed the
last Of her children over, she attempted to step on
board the car. She made misstep, and the car
being in motion she was crushed to death. Mr..
Knight in attempting to rescue her, sacrificed his
| life.
Charge TO the Jury.
The plaintiff, as administrator of the succession
of Knight, the deceased and tutor to the minor
| children. sues for damages. The claim set forth
| is threefold: That which the deceased, knight,
| had against the company on account OF injuries
to his wife resulting in death, which right, it is
urged, existed in him before his death and passed
to his heirs, the minors in this case the right Of
| Mrs. knight to claim damages for the injuries
| inflicted, and which right the minors inherited;
and, finally, the right Of the minors themselves,
4
| AS il is not contested by the defendants that,
| in proper case, these three different causes of
action are good and valid, your duty will be re-
stricted to examine the evidence with view TO
| determine whether the circumstances under
| which the injuries received were such as 70 affix
| upon the defendants liability for the damages
sustained. In order to facilitate you in the dis.
charge of this duty, the law requires that should
explain to you the legal principles which govern
| in cases like the present.
In order to succeed it is the duty of plaintiff to
| show that the accident which resulted in the in
| jury alleged was caused by the fault Of the de-
| fendant.
1t is immaterial whether the accident was due to
the omission or commission on the part of the com.
pany the defendants bound 10 do certain things
| and they are as liable for emitting to perform
these as for an improper and injudicious perform
snce. 1t must, however. be shown that imme-
date cause of the accident was the negligence or
csrelessness of the company or its agents.
/ cannot give you a better idea of the legal liza
bilities of the defendants than by quoting the Ian
guage of our Supreme Court in case similar to
| the present
refer to Black VS.. Carrollton Railroad Com
| pany, reported in 10 A. R., page 3S. The court
| said:
railroad companies are species of common
| carriers of comparatively recent date yet their
engines have already superseded the more tardy
| and less powerful vehicles of the vast genera
| ton, upon all the great thoroughfares OF the
land.
" 1t is therefore of great public concern that
the measure and extent of the liabilities of rail-
road companies should be determined with pre-
| cision.
"They ought doubtless to be held to account
ability for the misconduct of their servants; like
| all corporations, they can only act through SER
wants or agents. More than almost any other
kind of corporation their corporate business SUBJ
jects them to the risk of accidents. 1t is duty
which such a company owes to the public, to
| make velocity of locomotion compatible with
safety, so far as this can be elected by prudence
LII L IoI -
their contract with each passenger that the latter
shall not be put in jeopardy of life and limb by
any fault, even the slightest, of the servants of
| the company"
of the law afixing responsibility upon persons
following the business Of the defendants. And it
follows thereupon that a railroad company is
bound to avail itself Of all those improvements in
| machinery, construction of cars, and all other
objects necessary TO carry their business, such
as facilities for entrance to and exit from their
cars by passengers, which modern science and
daily experience have shown to be the best adap-
ted to guard against the occurrence of accidents,
when passengers are exercising ordinary care and
prudence.
If experience has shown that particular con-
sruction of the platform necessary for passengers
to enter the cars is defective, faulty and condu.
Give to the happening Of accidents; or that the
said construction is such that in case of acct
dent the extent of the injury to be received by the
passenger is necessarily augmented, it is the legal
|
struction and to adopt that one which general
experience and common sense indicate the best
| to prevent accident and II accidents are some
times unavoidable, which are calculated to 6i
minish the magnitude of the injury; fol
il is not only the duty of such companies
by all possible means to provide against
the possibility 8of accidents, but it is also
an obligation which devolves upon them to select
those improvements in their line of bushes.
which, when accidents become unavoidable, are
calculated to diminish the amount Of injury which
| would be otherwise suffered.
In the argument addressed to you, authorities
have been referred to by each party to prove hi
| position correct, and that of his adversary un
sound, and have no doubt II You follow closely
the reading of these books, you have come to the
conclusion that writer's on his branch Of the law
and courts in the application of its principles, MOI
only conflict with each other, but often with them
| selves.
This is the necessary result of considering eacf
adjudicated case as explanatory Of the whole la
applicable to all cases.
| This is an error.
The conflict often arises not in the determine
ton of the true principles Of the law, but in the
application to individual cases.
In no branch Of the law is the trte maxim
that every tub must stand on its own bottom, ,
more true than that which treats of damages re
coyerable against railroad companies; but not
withstanding the apparent conflict in the authori
ties, It seems to me that some principles are ele
mentary. and there should be no dispute abou
them; Inc nIst. and to which have already al
luded, is, that the company must be shown TO have
been in fault, and that the FAM
proven, whether of negligence. careless
ness, imprudence, want of skill, or the employ
ment. Of improper agents OF the use
OF improper machinery, must be shown
to have been the immediate cause of the accident
IL often happens both the injured party and the
company are in fault 1t is your peculiar pro.
vince to determine upon which shall be visited
the consequences of the accident. To help you
will tell you what believe to be the law which
governs In such cases The passenger is bound
to exercise ordinary care and prudence in his
conduct; the company, with respect to the safety
OF Its passengers s bound to extraordinary dig
ence and care: This principle, apparently in
equitable, will be found upon examination, to be
equitable.
1t is based upon the fact that persons following
particular occupation, are supposed to know
better than the general public, the risks ana