Court Opinion

ID: 9826435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:56:12.675257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:03.626768
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hydrick.
I dissent. If the decision of Carter’s case was right, the decision of this case is wrong. They cannot be distinguished on any sound theory. The fact that in the one an employee was injured and in the other a passenger was injured affords no logical ground of distinction. While a carrier does owe a higher degree of care to his passengers than to his employees, the degree of care required in either relation is not an element of determining factor of the question of what is the proximate cause of *301injury; for it is elementary that, if the act or omission complained of is not the proximate cause of injury, there is no liability, without regard to the degree of care required. The two principles are separate and distinct, and applicable to different phases of the case, and should not be confused. In Carter’s case, the Court unanimously and distinctly approved the' principle upon which Chancey’s case was decided, and it is admitted by the majority of the Court even now that the Chancey case “does go to the extent contended for by the defendant here.”
Mr. Justice Fraser concurs in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Hydrick.