Court Opinion

ID: 9810662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:55:43.063717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:08.505610
License: Public Domain

ShepheRD, C. J.,
concurring: I concur in the conclusion reached by the Court, but not on the ground that the regulation in question was an unreasonable one. It was not a stipulation against negligence in the ordinary sense of the term, and as long as it remained in force the defendant did not owe to the plaintiff the duty of providing bumpers for its cars. The essential element of negligence is a breach of duty, but, in order to recover, it is not enough for the plaintiff to show a simple breach of duty, but he must also show that the defendant owes the duty to him. 1 Shear. & Red. Neg., sec. 8; Beach on Cont. Neg. sec. 6; Emry v. Navigation Co., decided at this term.
In the decisions cited, where a recovery was had for negligence in not furnishing bumpers, there was either no regulation like that in present case, or such regulation had been waived. I cannot understand how it was the duty of the defendant to provide against an accident which could not possibly have happened but for a violation of its reasonable regulations. However negligent, then, as to others, the defendant may have been in not seeing that the cars were provided with bumpers, such negligence was not actionable by this plaintiff if his injuries were caused by his disobedience of an existing regulation (known and agreed to by him) forbidding him from going between the cars under any *500circumstances for the purpose of coupling, etc. The evidence, however, tended to show that there was a waiver of the regulation by the condúctor in charge of the train, and, in view of the authorities cited, and the convincing reasons given in the opinion, I think that such a waiver was, for the purposes of this action, binding on the defendant. It is upon this ground that I concur in the disposition made of the appeal.