Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1883-11-11

|EATTLE, W. T., SUM
rRESsPA PAssERs OS TRACK o.
TRAM.
N. Y. Railway Gazette.
From the number of instances il
which companies have been mulcteC
for injuries to :respassers, We infer tha
some confusion exists in the minds o
engineers and conductors relative e
their duties toward one who intrude:
upon the track or into the cars. Misun
derssanding on this point is very nat
| ural Viewed from an engineers stand
| point. the road-bed is the company't
pr,perty, the train has the right oi
way, the man walking along the track
has no business there, he takes all the
risk. and II he is run over he has only
| himself to blame. To average train
| men it may we'll seem that trespassel
has no rights which q railroad company
il bound 70 respect.
| And this much is perfectly true-that
he has not the rights of Q passenger
Towards passengers the company il
bound to exercise the highest possible
care and skin, that they shall be safely
carried. No such responsibility Is i'm
posed by law as towards tresspassers
But it does not follow that a certain
degree of care must not b exercised "a
syoid injuring them.
In Alabama an infrm old may essay
ed to walk across a long railroad trestle.
Al he was nearing the end, train came
upon the trestle at the beginning, and
vas rushing at full speed toward him.
Believing it impossible to reach the end
where he could turn OF from the track
| In season to escape, he let himself
down between the ties and hung by his
hands until the train had passed. He
then made every effort to draw himself
mp again upon the track, but had not
the necessary strength; he fell to the
ground below and was fatally hurt.
The engineers account was that he saw
the man when the train came upon the
trestle. bat supposed that he WAS taking
care of himself and had time to get to
the end before the train would reach
him; and when the engine was half way
across he reversed" but il was too late
to stop; and then, finding that he must
run past the spot where Gnnter was
hanging, he blew off brakes aud resumed
speed so as to let him have the ohance
to climb up as soon as possible. The
Judge who tried the lawsuit to which
the occurrence gave rise thought that
the company was not liable. But the
full bench reversed his decision. They
said that Gunter's fault in going upon
the trestle did not excuse the engineer
for wauton or reckless management of
the engine. And oven il Gunter's effort
to save himself by hanging from the
ties was foolhardy, yet If it was done in a
sudden fright it was not to be imputed
to him as negligence. And they ex-
planned that, generally, an engineer who
sees q pedestrian on the track is not
bound to slacken speed and give signals
il there is good reason to believe that
tho pedestrian is aware of the danger,
and has full opportunity to. and will.
leave the track in season; yet whenever
be is unaware, or may be hindered by
any cause from escaping, the engineer
must make prompt efforts to stop.
It is easy to see that such principles
are not different from those applicable
to other kinds of property. Ownership
of gun does not entitle one to fire it
at random in public places ownership
of field does not authorize one to put
gypsies who encamp on it to death.
Neither does the authority of an engi-
neer extend to running over trespassers
on the track, or that of q conductor to
thrustinR of passenger who won't
pay, without stopping the train. What
ever the intruder's fault may be, 1t is
not capital offence nor is the engi-
neer er conductor the executioner.
The law requires each of them
to use all reasonable precau-
tions to avoid injurinR human beings
with the ponderous and dangerous ma
chinery committed to his charge. In
truth, owners Of property generally
must take care to avoid injuring other
persons with it. and railroad managers
are simply subject to the general prin-
ciple. Precisely what degree Of care
they must take is difficult question,
and the courts have differed in endeav-
oring to state rule. Bat there is no
disagreement that care is due, even to-
ward in,ruders neither one stealing
ride nor one availing himself of the
road bed "a path can be treated with
wanton Disregard of his personal safety.
Gases involving children are frequent.
In Fort Howard, Wis, two little boys
adventured upon maze 0f tracks where
men were making up trains and switch
ing cars back and forth. A switchman
drove them away once, but they re-
turned, and at length they booame en-
gagged in playing among the rails, when
switching engine, driven by an engl-
neer Who either did not see the children
or disreQarded them, ran over one and
he was killed. On the question whether
there was negligence 10 charge the CON-
pany--the Ques ion whether the person
hort was not also negligent is distinct
the Court said that If the engineer
could, BY proper watchfulness, have
eeeu the children and avoided the casu-
alty, he was bound to do 80. In Jefferson
CITY. No. q tnrn-table standing in an open
public place was left unlocked, and .
paxty q little children wore amusing
fheneelves with il, when one vas NOR
tally han. The Court held the company
Habls en She groand that the precaatisn
Of keeping the apparatus fastened ought
| 10 have been adopted. We narrated =
dmiiar decision in Kansas not long ago.
Quits lately, in Pennsylvania, q boy Of
| 10, while lettering on one track waiting
! for II train on the other TO paes, vas
run over by another train which came
sloue ~ track a which ~ steod, and
ths company va held not liable beoause
| tho boy was careless; the Court. however,
| saia eSa1 eo0pniss alo lot beund e
Iako psoeausicns aGains1 al possible
danGers - otsoapaaeosA eut they mus
tn1o ordinary 0Aro.
PSerlex3nG .SueaEioos ariss vhsn .
psssos comes upoa . train b tnvieaste1
q oo4o 80 n ~ managerial, bol
tho company afssrward mainsains that
the tnvisation Was not aothonxed and
that TIA perDou Was therefore . tIDspas'
-. The coursu do not favor this claim
vhere the invitatiou = Givsn By the con
duetsr, OF By any agent Who voold Rsn
orally b suppoesA 10 Riveit AZ Quincy
M. = man and wife we're told by thu
oonduotor that the cars we're ready. and
they cot in and could not gst eeat. 4
brakeman told them to wait . few mo
ments and another car would be put on
It soeu came, and they were sndsavoeins
60 s4sp from oos platform - tbs oshao
there vas jerk. and the woman vaa
thrown between the cars and badl,
hurt. The eonpany's lawyer argued
that the injury was caused By their sry
ING 20 board the oaTs beSore the tfeir
| vas nads up. Bat the Court said u th
pcraons may mot enter cars w1sn tna