Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-12-14
RECOVERING FOR DAMAGES.
Some Noteworthy Cases of Personal
Injury.

From the Railroad Gazette
We mentioned some months ago Kansas
case holding a company liable for injuries which
boy, while playing about disused turn-table
sustained through its defective condition.
From recent decision it appears that the right
OF small boys in Kansas TO play about the
railroads Is not without limits. Near
station was a switch track $50 feet long
and inclined four and One-half feet in that
distance; so that a car switched off upon 1t
needed 10 be fastened, else IL would run down
the grade. The cars were usually fastened by
means of the brakes. But the boys of the place
were addicted TO climbing upon the cars. loosen
ing the brakes and taking free ride down.
This was not done by consent Of the company:
on the contrary. II was forbidden. One day
Young boy while taking ride in this manner
anil endeayoFin@ tn get of the car before it had
quite stopped, fell under the wheels and was
Killed. The court held that the company was
not liable. for the reason that it had not failed
in any duty. Neither the track nor the cars
were defective or out of repair. This boy was
not ~ passenger or an employee; he had no right
to Climb upon the cars, but was a mere tres
paSser- A. toward him the company was not
bound to fasten the cars in any particular way
and 1t had fastened them sufficiently to prevent
injury To all persons except one using them
wrongfully.
Another small boy case comes from Pennsy-
yaIl1a. He was newSboy. and was accuStome
to ride back and forth on the trains to sell
papers Tie had some oral permission from the
conductor for riding as he did. but the rules of
the company forbade any person, except en-
pl0yes. to ride without paying fare or showing
pass; the conductor had not authority to give
the leave At length the boy was killed under
circumstances which would have enabled his
mother. if he had been passenger. to recover
damages. And She brought suit, claiming that
the leave TO ride given to her son in effect made
rpt.,
ought not to have given it, The court said that
when a person gets leave froma conductor to
make trip without paying fare, which leave is
granted contrary To the rules of the company
the traveller is legally liable for the fare and the
company can recover it from him by an action.
Therefore he has the rights of q passenger while
on the trip But this boy rode back and forth
not as passenger. but to sell papers. He was
only trespaSSer. The company owed him no
duty-e3cept TO refrain from any wiliful injury.
DC. Damages could not be claimed for an or
binary railroad casualty by which he was hurt.
Kansas woman put two little girls aboard a
train of cars. intending they should ride to Iowa
Point. One OF them was less than D years of age,
the other Older. but weak and sickly. They were
pot placed in any ones charge nor was any money
given them to pay fare. 1t was the custom of the
company TO allow mere children travelling with
adults to ride free When the train reached Iowa
Point IL stopped long enough for passengers to
leave. The little girls. however. seem not to
nave Known until too late that the stopping
place was Iowa Point: at any rate they did not
reach the car platform to quit the car until the
train was Just starting However. they tried to
alight ApasSen@er tried to help them. The elder
one succeeded, but the younger one, when her
feet touched the platform of the station fell for
ward and she rolled to the ground between the
platform and the car If, now. she had lain per-
fectly STILL she would not have been hurt but she
had not presence of mind for this and her strug-
giles brought her feet upon the track and they
were badly crushed. Meantime. the conductor
had no information that the children were to
leave the train at Iowa Point, or that they were
travelling by themselves. And when the acct
Dent happened it was aggravated by the paSsen-
gers giving contradictory signals to the engi-
neer. The court held that the company was not
chargeable with any negligence which could rem
der Ii liable 1t was bound to carry the child
safely TO Iowa Point; but this was done. The
company was not bound to know that the child
wished to alight at Iowa Point unless that wish
was manifested by giving notice to the cOnduc-
tor beforehand or going forward to alight when
the train stopped. 1t was the hardness of the
children, and not any fault of the trainmen,
which delayed their getting off until the train
was dangerously i'm motion. Nor were the en-
ployes bound TO know that the children were
travelling without guardian; they had right
70 suppose that the passenger whom they saw
assisting the little girls to alight was person
In whose charge they were The company was
not IN fault because a gOOd-natured passenger
tried 70 help the children Off nor because hasty
and excited passengers confused the engineer
by injudcious signals The affair was an acct
dent which could not have been anticipated A
railroad company cannot be made responsible
for an unforeseen accident occurring in the right
ful operation of the road: its liability must
always be founded on a wrong. a neglect.
A grown woman IT. Pennsylvania sustained
singular injury in alightng. The train was
stationary. The woman was assisted by her
husband On stepping downward from the |
lowest step Of the car she advanced her left
loot foremost to the ground, keeping her right
foot on the step While she held that position.
anu without any apparent cause. her right knee
cap snapped and was fractured. There was no
Slipping or stumbling. no blow or force of any
kind She brought suit. ascribing the casu-
atty to strain attributable to the step being
extrayayantly high from the ground The
company denied that the step was I'M
usually high, and said that the injury
could only be attributed to some CON
stitutional weakness Of the lady's knee; and
they brought a witness or two to- show that the
lett knee-cap had previously been broken almost
n unaccOuntably- The court said the jury must
decide as well as they could whether the injury
was attributable to any negligence on the part
of the company: if it was fOrtuitOus- it could
not have been anticipated and provided against
there was no liability. But in case like this
negligence must be affirmatively proved. There
was no ground for presuming it. The cars were
AT stand-stii there was no jar or breaking Of
machinery. the lady was alighting without any
Interference from the company, and, If the step
appeared too high, she might have demanded
better facilities.
A car on the Northern Pacific road left the
track; and. as it was bouncing along one of
the passengers endeavored to save himself by
rushing to the platform and jumping off He
was badly hurt, but, the result proved. he
would probably have been safe if he had re-
manned in the car. The company urged that the
injury was clearly his own fault. But the court
said that the wisdom of jumping in such a case
Is not TO be determined by the result The pas
senger must Judge of the comparative danger
OF remaining still or attempting to get off by
the circumstances as they appear to him. He
has to act upon the probabilities at the time.
The jury must judge the case in the same way
III the leap was an act which person Of orii-
nary prudence might do under the crcumst ances
1t does not prevent the passenger from recover
ing damages.
Two recent cases have occurred of injury to an
empioye Occasioned by his being knocked from
the top OF a car by bridge over the road Both
have been decided in accordance with previous
decisions. that a company is not bound toward
employees to place its bridges high enough TO
admit of man standing erect on a car under
Meath. Injury from low bridge is one OF the
risks Of a brakeman's employment.
N a.