The San Francisco call., 1899-10-13
SUPREME COURT
PUTS PREMIUM
ON NEGLIGENCE
1t Is Not a Crime if
Eyes Are Closed.
REMISSNESS is PROFITABLE
Judge Daingerfeld Forced to Instruct
Jury in Keeping With 1t
and Disagreement
Results.
REMISSNESS is PROFITABLE

A recent decision handed down by the
Supreme Court. placing a premium on neg
lgence and making "remissness" on the
part or corporation employees a profitable
matter for corporations has prevented
the recovery of damages from the South
ern Pacific Company by the widow and
aged parents Of Christen p Rladt. who
was crushed to death beneath the wheels
of a locomotive at Estudillo Station. near
san Lorenzo, in the early morning of
July . of last year. On the morning of
the accident Bladt started for Oakland to
sell load Of fruit. Believing that no
train was near, he started to cross the
track, and the next instant he was hurled
unconscious to the dust injured unto
death. Some time later he was removed
TO his home, but died shortly after he
arrived there
His widow, Helene K. Bladt, and dece-
dents parents filed suit against the cor
poratlon to recover $40 900 damages for his
death. In the complaint il was set forth
that the corporation employees failed to
sound warning whistle or ring the bell
Wnen approaching the crossing. and that
after the train had hurled BlaGt TO the
roadside they refused 70 go back and rem
der MIN aid. A general denial on the part
or the Southern Pacific joined the issues,
and the case went to trial before Judge
Daingerfeld Considerable evidence was
produced substantiatng plaintiffs claim
tnat the corporation employees were re-
accident, while on the other hand the en-
ginesr and fireman OF the locomotive tes-
titled that the whistle was blown at the
proper place and that the bell was sound
ed 70 warn any one approaching the
track. After this testimony was in At
rOrney Peter /. Dunno. who represented
nreman at length on the point as 10
whether or not they saw the vehicle oc-
cupied by Biadt approaching the track.
Both testified positively that they did not
and the reason Tor the lengthy eXamina
tiOn on this point became clear when the
instructions were presented to the court
as among them was that based on the Su
preme Court decision making ''remiSs
ness on the part of employees profitable
70 the corporation This decision was
handed down in the case OF Herbert vs..
the Southern Pacific Company. and holds
that if the negli gence or the injured party
puts him in peril and his peril is noticed
by the defendant (Which in this case re-
ters 20 the detendants agents, the engin-
eer and fireman.. and by the exercise of
ordinary diligence the defendant could
have avoided the injury, and did not. the
defendant Will be held liable for the in
jury This rule is based, however, con-
unues the court, on the theory that the
defendant did know the plaintiffs peril
The defendant would have discovered the
peril of plaintiff but for remissness on his
part II nder this rule the Supreme
Court decision concludes. the defendant
Is not liable because he ought to have
known the peril OF plaintiff As an in
~ u' IylI "dSeH oiI IiiIS ceCiSlou was qe-
nanded by the C0mpany'S attorney. Judge
Daingerfleld had no alternative but 70 give
[. The jury filed out, and after being out
an night was unable 10 agree and was
discharged.
Many attorneys in the court spoke of
The danger 10 the people and the prOtec-
ion 10 the company in the decision above.
All locomotive engineer must do now to
protect the company is 10 whistle about a
quarter Of a mile from station or
-rossing. open his throttle and turn his
1HEk III ne leaves q trail of MANNED and
dead in his wake his employers are not IL
able because ne ought TO have attended to
duty and known the peril of the dead and
INJURED. which he did not, and in his ig
be has given his employers protection
and saved them financial loss Had he
zen negligent win open eyes tne com
Court logic, but negligence with closed
syes covers a multitude Of sins and saves
L multitude Of dollars.