The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1890-01-04

was evidently intended the cars should be
stopped for the circus company, but for the
telegram from brennan that the circus peo-
pie could not leave that night. After tran
sacting this business. plaintiff then left this
freight ONCE and ascended to the platform
from which by making a step too far to the
right. he fell to the ground a distance of 9 or
9 L. feet.
There is no doubt OF the fact that plaintiff
was seriously hurt by this fall in spite of the
testimony OF n man named Kelly, whose evil
dence, l must confess, has struck me VERY
unfavorabiy. i have made no attempt, how
ever, to calculate what amount of damage
was sustained by plaintiff because the con
clusIons L have reached are: that defendant
is not responsible in damages for the injury.
railroad companies should be held to the
~strict5st accountability for the safety not
only or passengers but for other persons AS
well, whomay havcbusinesstOtransact at their
offices, and whileI am not unmindful of the
fact that they frequently disregard the rights
1 OF the general public and often paw too little
need to their own duties and obligations to.
wards Others ] am not willing to extend the
rule OF responsibility so as to make defep5
dant liabie uader the facts Of this case.
W ~hatever right of action plaintiff might
nave had against defendant, had he, when
ne last left the freight office, intending re-
turning 70 his circus, is not now before the
court for discussion. Whether he was law.
iuliy there in the sense of holding defendant
liable Tor any injury received by him in 60 |
ing from that office: WHISTLER the agent,
Brennan, was acting within the scope of his
outies so as to bind the defendant by accom- |
panylng plaintiff to the freight office. after
once hours. Tor the purpose of sending the
message to the superintendent that the cir.
rms company would not leave that night are
al questions thitt are irrelevant to the issue |
thit - actually presented.
The question to be determined is. vbc+brr
tttLehuant IL respOnSiDle for the injury sus.
tanned ny plaintiff under the circumstances
as presented by the evidence. 1t is clear to
ny inlh'l tilat when plaintiff left the freight
once Just before he fell he intended taxing
Ine express train that was soon to arrive.
Inat this was his intention is borne ont NV
ne IdtC CIat TO reach the cirH.ls hn xrnuTI 4
nave gone in AN entirely different direction.
tnu ~ ms own statement under oath that
ne intended taking the incoming train from
from which platform he was under the i'm.
he coulG board the cars.
The evidence satisfies me that pIaip+f4
hht" the night or express train did not stou
Ltfonrche Crossing for passengers and
very object in telegrapbing was to get
permission to have it stopped there. He
aneW that the cars would not ston
or Doth the witnesses, Brennan. the railroad
gent, ana Bourgeois, the operator, testify
an the kilograms, including the one to
delivered to the conductor. directing him
lot 20 stop at the depot, were made known Y
. paaln.ln before he left the freight office
y nIake the attempt to board the ears. 1t is
,hoWn too that it is not customary for thai =.
ia.n 70 STOP Tor passengers at the Crossing !
eneer % dan u cas-. 9ank or at the regular pas
men special permission is given that il does
top. fiaintiff himself admits that he con q
Iuered that part of the contract or agree.
tent on the part of the railroad to atom sor S.
Wnoie circCs troupe, was cancelled INT
atenPts TO mold the position that it was NOT :.
OF SO consider the evidence. IT. was iust % Il
eeessary 10 obtain Il special permit to stop
ne cars Ior one person~as for a number and
-neh ne t~elegraphed to the superintendent
1at the circus company would NOT GET on ~
iat night he did not make any reservation .
IN se ana the superintendent had a
= NJ 70 consider, as he. did, that there was n
Q one VINO would take passage on the Gov. &
ne burden OF proof is ON him who attemnts :,
moving th noo,ncasfon ef-an agreement. :"
own that the express train wouId not ston v
.asnt.h when he left. the freight ONCE TO-
4rilous venture. 1t is shown tha, : a :.
IN ~ says ne was under the impressions
a ~ could lake passage on. the ears. viz:
= pIattorm from which he fell, it wouid he
'treme!y dangerous for any one to attenne
ger ABOARD a moving train. Defendant
m,s ~ mo legal obligation to furnish a.
q freight platform and one from wh;oh "
ople were not in the habit of takjne mas
= nravi ears, nor mad the agent, Brennan.
'aiu make an attempt to board the train
aHu plaintiff had gone to the freight Of.
e Ior an entirely different purpose ana II Ma
'uld seem that plaintiff only concaivad w
"a OF boarding the train after he had any
i ~ ane business he had gone there to at n&
~ 10 ana as he was l~eavingthe office Tha -"
ent, brennan, ~testifes that he did no, nv
~ plaintlH that he could take the train
ted s : aha the mere fact that plainrif =
III ~ III OE1ct, that he in. 4
ueu oolng SO cannot bind defendant ~
nossnce q PROOF that he was invited or
n ugea 20 40 so. Plaintiff, therefore, was
ny " attempting to do n grossly careIass
! extremely hazardous nc: when hn 81
ueu the platform, viz: to board a me- ~,
.ch M + wy dangerous point and one WG
MS i construe the evidence he was
tner invited nor induced to do by ans
bos hann Or any OF its authorized agents
mas Deen held that an attemnt to hparn
wing train is such contributorv Yoaruh
"ta ueDar = person from recoyerinv To-
! n'Rpr! received while so engaged,-Weeks -
*. 20 A. 500; ~ A. 494. And II Il n vi Sett
lghlzed principle OF law thar whan ~ ~ Stor
uuc5 OF Il person Is negligent and has COW -
/, = .u.ne uisaster he cannot recover -
= though the defendant be in fault nk
only was defendant not guilty of co,c LII
ing u Ianlf, In II legal sense. in MOI nrn
= = IN na,us or ratings around the plat.
'eriy lighted but I consider thai m%t,,rn
conduct was itself not only unInwfn - -,
H. n ntmnst out tnat tt was characterized I'm
=. utmost iitck OF care ana prudence, ana
W negligent. The burden Of nron, ahu
Is'taha me Jurisprudence of this state IT,
plnlhtiH TO show that his con,Iuct wa, 80
negligent and did not contrihpto Was
injury which he sustained. This has
uen g. IN the case of Deikman W. r.
-. .sz. see also III L.. =. 24l, where r. ~ -
that IL is necessary for n pIaintiff Is
- W violence, circumstance from RI
!" na j may ia'r,y pc Inferred that there is -
'tplc PROBABILITY that the accident r.' -
y rom tne want OF some nrpc,ution TH
ras nr ue.endant might and ought to
/, principles Of law 11,0s
. wei defined and settled that hardly On I'll
thorittess 10 cite any great number
thorities in support of this opinion
ainttitnEIiy read the decisions relied on
~ : IL ; counsel but fail to find any that
DIT MS position or in which thSS M -
agreed with that in this case. Tn thn
81 aeniston VS.: Il. Il. "a A. III the relas
!, passenger ana common carrier exist !,
f%: sss, el 9! 7 9as,: ana !" % Ss,sRsa1 It. ana & ' : sasa A !.
70 IN no"eu vs.R X. 20 \. 603, in Hansnm penis.
~ % "a. ~, III MOSES W. II IL 10 cU dNalIi