Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1879-09-10

been repeatedly hell in this State that dan
gerous embankments along TIE public high
way should be secured by guards, rails, or
some other efficient protection from acci-
dent. Ii is not To be doubted that these
low S-inch wing walls, unguarded as they
were in this bridge, were dangerous to travel
in vehicles, and ON horses, but the question
inqoved here is, We're they dangerous 10
fined 10 foot travellers. Ii is shown that
about Z O'Clock on the evening of the 2lSt
i February, 1873, this woman, Mrs. Jones,
left her house, which was but a few yards
from the south end of this bridge, to go to
/ Mr.. McCulloch's to render some domestic
I help, ard that about il O'Clock of the same
evening she was found dead, in a sitting
/ posture, in the drain ditch of the roadbed
OF the railroad, with her arms folded and
her head bending forward. There is really
no direct evidence as to the cause OF her
death, or rather, We should say tina; there Is
no evidence how she came by her death,
but that il was the result Of an injury by 4
fall from OF the wing wal. of this bridge, or
blow from passing train is morally GER
tain, for several of her ribs As well as one
of her arms were found broken, and il is
certain that her death was the result of per-
soual injury. In the absence of all proof,
and circumstances showing negligence Ola
the part of person found killed by fall
or other shock, it is 4 presumption of law,
knowing how careful The mass of mankind
are TO avoid death, and preserve lite, that
the injury wa not the result of carelesSness
OH the part of ;he deceased; in short, the
love of life viii stand Tor proof of care un-
I'll the contrary appears. Cleveland and
PittSburg Il. K. Co. vs.. Rowan, lG Smith,
1898 Railroad vs.. Weber, 70 w, l5i
Weiss ". Railroad, W. y. c., 2ii Rail
road vs.. Hagen, II Wright, 2iI; Railroad
vs.. Hall, Il Smith, SOL; Alien vs.. Willard,
I Smith. 37I.
Starting out with these recognized prin-
ciples, We have:
First. That it was the duty of the rail-
road company to build and maintain this
brldsr and wing walls in good and safe con-
ditlon for vehicles and foot travel.
Second. That the wing walls supporting
the approaches to this bridge were but from
TO 5 inches higher than The robbed it. |
sell. without guards to prevent vehicles be-
ing backed of by unruIy horses, or foot
passengers stepping of in the darkness and
falling several feet.
Third. That this woman was found d cad /.
near the lett wing wall ot the south abut- |.
ment, with foot-prin leading from the door T.
0: her house directly On bee hue) to the 1
centre OF that left south wing wall, and even .
according TO Jacobs) onto the very wall /
itself, rendering il nearly ceriaiA that her
death was caused by her stepping of the
wing wall and falling Is feet.
Ii there was no mere in the case, the .
Inability Of the company to pay the money
value Of her life would be fixed, and your .
duties would end with the assessment Of 4
the damages.
But your duties do not end inst h re /
There are some facts to b. weighed. aud .
principles of law to be applied upon finding .
certain facts, which may wholly prevent This
plaintiff from recovering anything for the .
loss of this Woman's lIte. and they are these
Ii is i wei! recognized principle OF law that,
although the company may have neglected .
its duty in not guarding by rails or other .
means these wing walls, still if this woman
was herself guilty OF ncgiecting to exercise .
that ordinarily reasonable care and caution
which prudent persons take TO avoid dam .
ger and loss OF life, aud thereby contributed .
to her own death, her husbJnd cannot re-
cover, because the law viii ~: uLdyrtIk. .
which each (ihe woman and the compiny)
has done to produce the disaster Now the .
law requires that all persons using the high |
way, must walk by sight when they can see. .
and avoid all manifest danger which com !
mon care and common prudence can pre- I
vent. \ stranger, ,hat l., one unacqulnted .
with the way, walking the highway 10y night, /
and unable to see clearly. may, it is true, 7
walk by faith, for he ha> the right to assume 4
that the authorities, or those whose duty it .
is to make and maintain safely the pIbhc 4
way has discharged the duty, and if a trap .
is lett, or dangerous place i unguudeG, /
by which he is injured, no negligence can .
be imputed to him. But where the trav- .
e!er is familiar with the road or street, and .
knows that dangerous and ungudrded .
point exists, he mast be the more careful, I
use more caution, and take reasonable mca- /
snreS to avoid accident. II he fails to do .
this, and rushcs blindly on and is injured,
be is at fault-h" has contributed to his own
loss, aud the law viii not weigh the matter I.
between him and the authorities, who have |
also neglected their duty.
Now YOU will perceive from these priuci-
pies, that you must consider the conduct Of
this dead woman, and see whether she has
helped by her own acts to bring about the
accident y vhicn cost her her life. Was She
negligcutl Did she know that this bridge
was dangerous because the wing walls were
unguardyd, and that in a dark and rainy
night an attempt to cross over it, without
light, wOuld be dangerous aud expose her
to the chances of stepping off the wing
aa.ls, and falling from l6 TO 20 feet. The
i've virgins who took no oil in their vessels
were deemed foolish, bur this woman, Lay
ing oil in her lamp, dill not even light it,
but attempted to cross in the dlrkness.
She lived but 4 few yaIds from this bridge
and mast hlve known 1t well; and there was
another way by which she could have gone
to the house of Mr.. McCulloch just rs near,
but involved the crossing OF the track or
the railroad. Now these questions you
must answer, and if you find that this wo-
man was fairly chargeable with the want of
common care in doing what she did in at
tempting the passage of this bridge on that
n. 4 1..sr