New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-03-05
RRnKEN RR1KES.

From Kentucky there comes q report OF decision
which will be comforting to railway passengers;
and also no doubt. TO patentees OF improvements
in rolling-stock. A train Of tho Central Kali
road Company was wrecked by running into
herd of cattle astray the track, and passenger
was killed. HIS widow sued for damages Tho
company retorted that the deceased man was rid
ing at the time Of the casualty, in the car allotted
to the express company. where he had no business to
DO that if he had kept hin proper place in passen-
ger car he would not have been hurt. for no person
in either Of those cars was injured But the Court
dsposed OF that objection by ascertaining that tho
man was an express messeD ger. though net on DUTY
on that particular day, and saying that as his rld =
ing in the express car was natural and probably al
lowed by the conductor and as could have no sort
OF tendency TO induce to engineer to run into the
cows 1t ought not TO hinder recovery or damages
The Judges therefore, proceeded to consider the main
question. whether the company was IN fault. NOW,
- no blame was attached to the conductor" nor to
the en,1ncer or brakeman. There was no SPECIFIC
announcement of the train, nor any charge OF
serious detects in the road, and the roling-st0ck
was good of its kind. But tho plaintiffs lawyers
offered evidence showing that the Westinghouse ar
brake was moro efficient means OF arrestlng the
progress OF train than were the old-iashioned
brakes which wero in use on the train in question.
company liable, if the jury convinced that the
use of the superior brake would have checked the
train in time to avoid the calamity, was the chief
| question involved.
The Court decided in favor Of the suit. COM
many of large business and adequate means is bound
70 nrovide ts trains With the best known appliances
for nreyenting disasters 1t is not emily bound to III
nm its rolling stock in good condition at tho outset
but also TO add from time to time, such apparatus
as the progress Of invention makes known, and ex'
perence proves TO be of material value IN diminish
ing the dangers of travel; provided the cost Of
| sueh new improvements Is not unreaSOh'
| ably great. The courts will not require the
co,nnanies TO expepd 90 much in Improvements
as will render their roads prOitless; and less ex-
nenditure will be exacted from companies of small
| means and business than from the larger and more
nroftable ones The rule that railroad company
must avail itself of all new Inventions and improve
uens the utility Of which has been tested, is to b.
| apped with a reasonable regard to the ability o
| the company, aud the nature and cost OF the I'M
movement; but within its appropriate limits /
shauld be firmly enforced. In thIs case the plain
tiH,s lawyers showed that the company had not lon
before the accident, declared dividend; that 1t
capital stock was five millions, and that the cos
of eou,pping all the trains with the modern air
hike would have been only about $4,000. Tn
Csurt said that this state of facts showed suficon
means to Justify the company in the expenditure.
There is strong support for this decision in man.
general remarks which have been mode, eXplainin
the obligations of the companies TO employ I'll
utmost means for securing the safety OF passengers
| Init instances have been rare which the duty O
examining and adopting important imProvementsl
apparatus has been presented so squarely an
definitely as IN this case.