Juniata sentinel. [volume] (Mifflintown, Pa.) 1846-1873, 1873-07-30
Accidents -" The Beale Case"

Accidents 90 The Beale Case"
Accidents have exercised such con
trolling influence in determining definite
rules in the administration of affairi
among men, in governments, politics,
science. religion and law, that the thinker
Is almost compelled to ignore them as &C.
cidents and accept them as part of the
Law of the great Intelligence that gov
erns the universe. We DO not here ira
verse the long historic vista for illustrs-
tions in support of this position We
take a case familiar TO all Juniata county
people, and which, by a decision of the
Supreme Court Of this Commonwealth,
has become law to govern the travelling
public at railroad crossings.
On a morning in the month of Septem
her 1871, Thomas Beale by accident
l1|as killed by train Of cars at the lower
crossing at Patterson Station. Through
the distress of this sad case no one even
suspected that the travelling public would
definitely learn its proper relationship to
its own members.
The widow of Mr.. Beale Instituted
legal proceedings for the recovery of
damages for the loss of her husband
E. ID. Parker became her counsel in the
Court of Common Pleas of this county.
Last September the case was up for trial
l.. W. Hall ives counsel for the X. r. Co,
and rsised the point that Beale had not
stopped before driving on the track, and
looked for danger. and therefore there
could be no recovery. 1t was left to the
Jury to determine from the evidence
whether the approach of the train could
have been seen. The jury found for the
plaintiff in the sum of $1,000. The
case went up to the Supreme Court with
she following result. as delivered by Mr..
Justice Sharswood. And thus through
painful accident ia our midst, the whole
Commonwealth has received a law to
govern the travelling public a, railroad
crossings:
The evidence of the plaintiffs below
showed clear case of contributory neg
ligence in the deceased The crossing
at which he met with the injury which
resulted in his death was a dangerous
one, and as he was well acquainted with
it there was the greater reason that he
should exercise the utmost care and
caution, by stopping at the railroad be-
fore undertaking to pass over. 1t is
very clear that if he had done so but a
few minutes the accident would not have
happened. This evidence said the
learned judge in his charge, "is uncon
trodicted, that there was level piece OF
ground, about ten feet wide, between the
hill or bluff and the first track or siding
on the approach of the track from the
valley, upon which the deceased was
travelling" 1t was his plain duty to
have stopped at that place, and so the
learned judge instructed the jury. but be
qualified this instruction by adding ''ii
yoa find from the evidence that the ap.
proach of the train might have been seen
or heard from there. This in fact left
the question of bis negligence to the
jury, upen point not material. Indeed
the duty of stopping is more manifest
when an approaching train cannot be
seen or heard than where it can. If the
view of track is unobstructed-and no
train is near or heard approaching i,
might perhaps be asked, why stopl In
such case there is no danger of COLI
q sion-none take place and the sooner the
traveller is cross the track the better
But the fact of collision shows the ne
cessity there was Of stopping and there
fore in every case of collision the rule
must be an unbending one. If the
traveller cannot see the track by looking
out, whether from fog or other cause, he
ehould get out, and if necessary lead his
borsc aud wagon. A prudent and care.