The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1877-12-06
The NLRRow-PAssAGE ACCIDENT


A TEST CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
OF APPEALS ON THE QUESTION OF THE
LIABILITY OF TIE BALTIMORE AND
OHIO RAILROAD FOR DAMAGES FOR THE
PERSONS THERE KILLED-THE LAW
LAID DOWN AS TO NEGLIGENCE OF
TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES.
The Supreme Court of Appeals yesterday
decided the case of the Baltimore and Ohio
railroad Company against Wightman's adj
mnistratOr.
This suit grew ont of the accident which
occurred in the county of Shenandoah in
the year 1875 at a place known as the Mar
row Passage. which resulted in the death OF
number of passengers upon the train of
the Valley railroad by the falling in of the
bridge at that point. The Valley railroad
was at that time and is at present operated
and controlled by the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company, which exercises its pow
ers under a lease from the Virginia Midland
Railroad Company.
The road upon which the accident occurr-
ed lies between Strasbnrg and Harrison
burg, in tie county of Shenandoah.
1t may not be generally known that there
is Il statute in Virginia, passed in 1872, which
authorizes the representatives of person
killed by the default, or neglect, or wrong
full act OF another, or of Il corporation, to
maintain q suit and recover damages for
the killing OF such person. Under this
statute Il large number Of suits were brought
against the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company by the representatives of persons
killed at Narrow Passage.
Among these was the present SHIT OF
Wightman's administrator, brought in the
county OF Shenandoah, which resulted in Il
verdict and Judgment for the plaintiff for
$500. From that judgment the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company took All appeal
to the Supreme Court OF Appeals, which
was deliberately argued at Staunton in Octo-
Der by Moses Walton for the plaintiff and
General Williams for the company.
The decision of the Court was rendered
yesterday, Judge Staples delivering the L.
unanimous opinion. Our space permits only
4 brief abstract of the opinion, which was
an extended one, involving many Interest,"
ing questions Of law in Virginia. One of
the first points arising in the case was a mo-
ton OF the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company to remove it to the Circuit Court
OF the United States for the Western Dis
trct OF Virginia. upon the ground that that
company is Il foreign corporation, chartered
by the laws of Maryland.
The Court Of Appeals was Of the opinion
that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com
pany, having accepted lease from the Vir
gnia Midland Railroad Company, a Virgin
i'll corporation, and under the lease eXercis
ing all the powers OF d Virginia corporation,
had placed itself iE the position of q domes-
tic corporation for all the purposes of State
jurisdiction. Whether the company obtain
ed this lease under the authority of any
statute OF Virginia or by virtue Of any pro-
vision in the charter of the Virginia road
was not material to inquire. If the COM
pany was here operating the Valley road
under a license from the State, it would be
considered quo adj hoe the line Of said road
as Virginia corporation, so far at least as
its liability to answer our own citizens in
our own courts of the wrongful acts OF its
agents. II the company is operating said
railroad without the authority OF the State
it could not claim exemptions and immun-
tiles to which it would not be entitled if it
had such authority. If it exercises the priv
ileges and functions Fl tie Virginia corpora
ton it must likewise be subject to its duties
and responsibilities. This is but the brief
outline Of the reasoning Of the Court upon
this point. The Court was Of the opinion
that the Circuit Court of Shenandoah, there
fore, did not err in refusing to remove the
case to the Circuit Court of the United
States.
The Court was further of the opinion that
in Il declaration under the statute already
referred to it is unnecessary TO state for
whose benefit the action is brought; that the
law gives the damages first to the widow
and children of the deceased, and if there
be none living the damages to constitute as
sets to be distributed as other personal es-
tate. The opinion upon this point involves
questions OF a. purely technical character,
which do not admit of being embraced with
III the limits of a newspaper report.
The Court was further of the opinion that
| the jury is assessing damage to the widow
and children under this statute may properly
estimate the value of the support and main
tenaEce derived from the deceased the
amount realized by him from his usual ave-
cation, and the loss of his care, nurture, and
Instruction to his family. All these are ele-
ments OF that pecuniary capital of the coh
tnued exercise and employment CT which
the family gre entitled to the benefit. and of
which the Wron rfil acts Of the defendant
deprived them. 1t is proper, they held. TO
look to the relationship and dependant con-
dlti0u OF the parties, the capacity OF the de-
ceased. mental and physical. and all the snr
rounding circumstances and situation of the
family, to enable the jury properly 10 esti-
mate the loss s.staine and tc fix the
measure OF compensation.
In estimating the damages it is not prop
that the deceased had Il policy of insurance
upon his life for the benefit OF his family,
and which had been paid to them since his
death. 1t is to he presur ed that the deccas-
ed paid the value for his policy the defen
dant paid nothing, and il cannot clam the
benefit OF contract for which it gave no
consideration. The Circuit Court, there
fore, did not err in giving the instructions
asked for by the plaintiff, nor in rejecting
the evidence offered by defendant on that
point.
The Court dill not err, further, in telling
the jury when carriers undertake. to convey
passengers by the powerful but danger Gus
agency OF steam public policy and safety re-
qpire that they be held to the grtAtest pos
sibe care and diligence. The slightest neg
lect against which Human foresight and pru-
dence might have guarded, and by reason
Of which the plaintiff intestate may have
been occdsiDneil. renders the company lit-
Bile in damages for his death. These in-
structions correctly state the law as laid
down by the count and the most eminent
writers in this country.
There are several other points in he opin
ion not here noticed
The opinion OF the lower court was affirm
ed.
There are :lanist tweh.y other cases de-
pendent upon this decision. Richmond
Disprf~h. -3nM