The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-07-08
RECENT LEGAL OPINIONS.
Panic Among Passengers-Liability of
Railway

Panic Among Passengers-Liability of
Railway
In the recent case of Davis VS.. Paducah
Railway and Light Company, il was held
that If an electric railway was negligent,
and such negligence produced a fash Of fire,
followed by smoke. in the car, and this
caused the ampede of the passengers and
made them run over the plaintiff, il cannot
be held as a matter of law that the injury
was not the proXimatea and natural result of
defendants negligence, but tina the de-
PENDANT will be liable if the conduct of the
passengers was the natural result of the
defendants negligence or was such as
might reasonably be expected under the
circumstances considering the crowded
condition OF the car and the fact that it
was propelled by electricity. The question
is similar to a case where the whistle of a
locomotive is needlessly and wantonly
sounded near a highway, causing a team
of horses 10 run and to kill another horse,
the owner of the latter may recover of the
railroad for the loss. [6S Southwestern Rep.
(ky), 14O.1
Damages for Personal Injuries from
Fighting Fire
A newspaper report mentions as a case
without known parallel in the books that of
Logan vs.. Wabash Railroad Company, re-
Gently decided by a Missouri Circuit Court,
the holding being that no recovery could be
had for personal injuries lin this case the
plaintiffs hands were badly burned) sus-
tanned by an individual in protecting his
property from fire caused by the railroad,
on the grounds that such injuries are not
the natural ana prOX1mate results OF the de-
PENDANTS acts. Several authorities are to
be found on the subject, however, the ma
Jor1ty OF them supporting the view of the
Missouri court. The case Of Hinchy VS..
Manhattan Railway Company, New York,
is not only in point. but is exactly similar
in its facts. The case of Shining VS.. Illinois
Central Railway Company, 81 Iowa, 246, sup
ports a contrary view.
A Novel Suit-Action for an "Egging."-
A former candidate for lieutenant cover
nor of North Carolina has brought suit for
SIS. 600 against the Seaboard Airline Rail-
road for an "egging' which he received at
the hands of some small boys while he was
waiting at a station 70 take a train. 1t APP
pears that the plaintiff was much given to
public speaking, and had on the day in
question made a speech in the town in
which the egg episode occurred. The court
will very likely take judicial notice that a
contribution of stale eggs is the ordinary
s~peechmaking, and will refuse to hold the
railroad responsible for the direct conse-
quences of the plaintiffs own act. Flaw
Notes for July.l
Action for Adultery-A Look Not
Sufficient
In Pettus VS.. Pettus, rs New York Supple
ment, 462. il was held that in an action
brought by a husband for a divorce on the
ground of adultery, proof that the defend
ant and the correspondent were in each 9TH
er's company most of the time while din
ing and living at the same boarding house,
and that the look in defendants face while
sdZllS DIT liz OItSpOuuchl was uCn DIS 10
convince one witness of the existence Of i'm
proper relationship, was insufficient to sus-
tain the action.
An Immaterial Circumstance
In Leeper VS.. Bates, IS Missouri. 2o4. we
find these remarks: HE vas sometimes
respondent, and one Of his daughters heard
him threaten TO commit suicide. A witness
once heard him swear while trying to fasten
on his collar button; but we cannot regard
this as a symptom of softening of the
BRAIN"