Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-12-07
The Law OF Negligence.

The Law or Negligence.
The decision of Judge Livingston in
ordering non suit in the case Of Schum's
heirs against the Pennsylvania railway,
will very efYectually protect all the rail
road companies from the recovery Of
damages for death or injury encountered
in crossing their tracks, il 1t should be
held to be the law by the supreme court
on appeal. 1t Is not one whit too much
to say that II leaves sufferers by collisions
absolutely without remedy. 1t Is, there
fore, justi6able to pronounce It an absurd
decision. Certainly the law does not
give damages for loss of life or limb in
collisions with railroad trains at rail
road crossings, and then make II impos
sible to collect them. The Legislature
few years ago limited the amount OF
damages recoverable for death as the
result OF railroad negligence, which
Limitation the constitution has since
done away with. Judge Livingston
would now have us believe that both
constitution makers and law makers
were playing game of thimble rig, or
now you see it. and now you don't, with
the people, aided by the supreme court
and were giving them damages with one
hand while slipping them away with the
other. Maybe 1t is not Judge Livingston
or the lawmakers, but the supreme court
only that Is responsible for this game OF
CANNON. Judge Livingston bases his
decision on what he understands to be
supreme court ulings. Certainly If he
coustrnes the supreme courts judgment
Alright, there is good reason for the re-
tirement of its members into lunatic
asylum.
Mr.. and Mrs. Schum, driving along
country road leading from the Lancaster
and Middletown turnpike, near Salunga,
came very shortly to crossing of the
Pennsylvania railroad. where they
met train and were both kill
ed. 1t was proved by the plain
tiffs that the whistle was not sounded
nor the bell rung at this crossing nor at
the crossings In Salunga, a third OF mile
away. 1t was further shown that where
the accident occurred there was curve
in the railroad, and that the obstruction
to the view OF the railroad from the road
was such that the train could not be seen
fifty yards from the crossing until at a
point on the road ten yards from it. 1t
was proved that the train was stunning at
forty miles an hour; Mr.. Schum is sup
posed to have been driving at about four
miles an hour.
1t is obvious then that while the
train ran City yards Mr.. Schum could
have gone but about five yards and rs
he was killed on the track 1t would seem
to have been proved that he must have
been within FIVE yards Of il when the
train WAS fifty yards away. The prOba
bility is that his horse was on the track
when the train was this distance off, as
it would take less than three seconds for
train 10 run fifty yards at forty miles
an hour.
Under this state of the proof, the neg.
ligence of the engineer in not sounding
his whistle being conceded, the court
held that Mr.. Schum was also negligent
in not seeing the train nor stopping to
listen for it and that therefore lie could
not recover and the suit was dis
missed.
It will be easily seen that il this is law
railroads are safe from the recovery o
such damages; for II will be conceded
that no man is going on track when
he sees railroad train bearing down on
him at forty miles an hour. If there
were three seconds in which it was pos
sible for him to see it, this decision says
that it was ample time for him to get or
keep out of the way, and the court Can
refuse to let jury have chance to say
otherwise.
The supreme court has pronounced
the doctrine that person driving along
the road is bound to look out for the 10
comotive ; and IL he does not avoid il
when he may, with reasonable care
that he cannot recover damages The
present decision is the reductiO ad alb.
surdum" of this doctrine.