The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-06-24
ROTTEN EGG CASE
Supreme Court Enunciated
No New Principle.
But Followed The Law Laid Down by Judge
Ruffin in The Case Of Britton VS..
Railroad.

To the Editor: In the case of Seawel
OF the Supreme Court, there seems to be
a misapprehension of the facts as given
to the public 1t is due the Court and
parties concerned that the real facts upon
which the court rendered its opinion
should be known.
The jury found:
IL. That the plaintiff was a passenger
at the time of the assault. Being pas
senger, and at the time of the assault,
ia the act of boarding the defendants
train, he was entitled not only TO safe
, transportation, but to protection from
insults and injury on The part of any one
permitted by the defendant to enter upon
its premises. This is no new principle
enunciated by the Supreme Court now
constituted, but it was held to be the
law IN this State as'early as 1883 in the
case of Britton VS. Railroad. and is
concisely stated in the opinion in that
case by Justice Ruffin, who delivered the
opinion, as follows:
(S8 N. c., at page SAD. "The carrier
owes to the passenger the duty OF pro-
tecting him from violence and assaults OF
bis fellow passengers or intruders, and will
be held responsible for his own or his
servants neglect in tins particular, when,
by the exercise of proper care. the acts
of violence night have been foreseen and
prevented; and while not required to
furnish police force sufficient to over
come all force, when unexpectedly and
suddenly offered, it is MS duty to provide
ready help sufficient to protect the pas
stnger against assaults from every quar-
ter which might reasonably be expect
ed to occur under the circumstances OF
the case and the condition of the parties I
The testimony offered by the plaintiff
in SeaWell against the Railroad, not only
brought the case within the principle laid
down by the court IN the opinion just
cited, but the jury further found:
(2l That while the plaintiff was thus a
passenger he was assaulted by the de-
fendant, the Railroad Company, through
its agents and employees; and,
49, That the defendant, through It's
agents and employees, failed and neglected
to protect or offer to protect the plaintiff
from the insults and injuries heaped upon
him.
There was ample evidence to support
these findings by the jury. One OF the
agents OF the railroad Company went
upon the witness stand and swore that he
participated In the assault on the plain
tiff while on duty, and thai he threw one
egg at the plaintiff. This was an actual
participation in the assaL.., and his adj
missions were supported ny the testimony
of other witnesses. The chief agent OF
the defendant also admitted while on the
stand as a witness that he did nothing
to protect the plaintiff during the as
sault, but on the contrary laughed at it
while it was in progress. It was also in
evidence that this same witness stated
to the crowd Immediately after the as
sault that they had not given him half
enough"
Then, if there was any evidence to sup
port these findings. its sufficieney and
truthfulness was for the Jury to deter
mine, and not for the court. The jury
did determine the issues in favor of the
plaintiff. Therefore, to my mind, the
court could render no other opinion than
the one handed down unless il should
over rule the opinion in Brltton vs.. Rail
road above cited, and numerous decisions
Of the court since that time. affirming
this decision of the court and the princl-
pies therein enuneiated
JAMES ID. MCIVER.
Carthage, N. c.. June %. 1903.