The Washington herald., 1907-05-09
ROBB RAPS CAR LINES
Assails Prevalence Of Over.
crOwding Practice.
GIVES AWARD TO PLAINTIFF
District Justice Declares Posting of
signs Dangerous TO Ride on Plat
form" Does Not AbsOIve Company
from Liability If Passenger Is
Thrown from the Car.

'ENen though notice. pfDBfbiitAS pas
sengers from riding upon the platform, is
posted, it win not make it negligence In
law for a passenger 10 ride upon the
platform if the company daily ignores its
own notice. and thereby establishes Gus
tom inconsistent Herewith.
Such is the language CT Justice Robb Of
the District Court of Appeals, in an opin-
ion handed down in which ne aftirms the
judgment Of the lower court in finding in
| favor of Samuel Brown. a colored man.
against the Capital Traction Company for
injuries sustained by being thrown from
I a. car October %, 1895. The Traction Com
pany appealed the case, and Justice Robb,
/ in his opinion. states in vigorous terms
what he regards the responsibilities Of the
street car companies toward their passen-
gers.
/ The following are the points in Justice
/ Robbs decision which are Of interest to
the public: Because Of this means Of
travel. valuable franchises are freely
granted railroad companies, and in return
therefor the public has q right to expect
/ that due regard VIII be had for the con-
venience and safety OF passengers. I'm
nue. frequently causes these companies to
disregard their plain duty. Their derellc-
/ ton in failing TO provide adequate ae-
commodations for their passengers is so
generally known that courts VIII take no.
tice OF II, for while theoretically Justice is
blind, practically, justice is ever alert,
watchful, and progressive.
Rap at Crowded Cars.
OF overcrowding OF street cars, Justice
Robb says: THAT overcrowding Of street
cars, strap-hanging. and platform riding
are daily INDUCED Ia and encouraged, no
one will deay. The average American
car rider says a recent editorial, dur
! ing the hours of greatest traffic, has only
the faintest hope Of ever getting a seat,
and is glad to accept strap. He is par
/ ticularly pleased when he is permitted
margin Of a few inches OF room beyond
| his own girth. Cars that will seat forty,
usually carry eighty people. and often
hundred
The cause Of this is obvious. Trans
/ portation companies run one car where
| they should run two, and corresponding
| increase In profits and "a corresponding In
| convenience 10 the public result AS IN
:
notices that it is dangerous TO ride upon
the platform. and then, day in and day
out. deliberately ignore and neuualize
| such notices by overlooking their cars
| and taciuy consenung that passengers
1 ride not only upon the platforms, but
upon the running-bOard thereof.
Notice Does Not Prohibit.
TT will be observed" continues Justice
st+E-f 49,. ,rtFa, IN, THE ooaa Hrac
not prohibit a passenger from riding upon
the platform. It merely declares 1t to be
dangerous TO do so. It is probably more
dangerous 10 ride upon the platform than
within the car, and the passenger. by tax
ing such a position, assumes the risks
(which naturally ensue from that position.
That is to say, if the company runs its
cars in a prudent manner and the passen-
ger falls of and is injured. that is a risk
he assumed by standing upon the plat
form. but. If he has exercised due care.
and is injured because Of the negligence
of the company in running Its car, the
Icompany cannot be heard 70 say that he
has no right Of action against it when It is
responsible for the practice which resulted
in his injury.
speed Fixed by Law.
Under the police regulations in force
in this District It Is unlawful for an
electric car 10 attain speed greater than
twelve miles an hour within the city lin
its. or speed greater than six miles an
hour at street crossings. Assuming that
these regulations are complied with, as
| well as certain other regulations appli-
sable to the construction Of cars, we
think it would be unreasonable 10 rule
as a matter Of law that the mere riding
upon the platform constitutes negli-
gence.
Having consented that the plaintiff
ride upon the platform. We do not think
it would be either reasonable or just to
permit the appellant. in utter disregard
of its duty as a common carrier Of pas
i sengers, 10 caTelessly operate its cars
and injure the plaintiff. and then meet
his suit for damages with the statement
that If he hadn't been there they wouldn7t
| have jolted him off. We do not think
such a ruling would tend to lessen the
practice Of overcrowding cars, or tend 10
! Increase the safety and security Of pas
] sengers.'