Court Opinion

ID: 9641444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:32:06.225492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:13.054007
License: Public Domain

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
There is no quarrel with the majority opinion upon the propositions of law cited. It is granted that a public utility has an affirmative duty to take reasonable care to protect its business guests from harm. But that does not make the utility an insurer of the safety of its guests which it is submitted the majority comes pretty close to doing in this case. This dissent is based upon disagreement with the majority concerning the application of the general rule of law to the facts here.
Certainly the ordinary social card game is not an occupátion fraught with physical danger to others, whatever pecuniary risks may be involved for the participants. There is no charge in this case that the conduct of the card players previous to the alleged accident was boisterous or otherwise disorderly, except for the fact that one of them in bending over, had touched or bumped the plaintiff. There is no statement that any railroad employees saw this touching. The plaintiff evidently did not think the danger important enough to protest to any member of the train crew. Even if the card players had been engaged in disorder, this would not be enough to charge responsibility for that disorder to the defendant unless the latter had reasonable means of knowing of it so that suitable precautions could be taken. Out of these facts here it seems to me that there is nothing to give notice to the defendant of any possible source of danger to other passengers from the activities of these card players. There being no indication of danger, there is no negligence in failing to provide protection. One is not charged to take precautions against things' which, in the exercise of reasonable care, he has no way of knowing exist.
The rule applied by the majority would' seem to make a carrier responsible for any bumps suffered by sitting passengers from those standing in aisles. In other words, allowing people to stand in the aisle becomes liability creating conduct; at any rate, unless the train crew can ascertain constantly that the standing passengers are giving full attention to the maintaining of their equilibrium upon starts and stops. I do not suggest that the majority opinion-would espouse such a doctrine as a matter of law, but it seems to me the practical' effect of the ruling in this particular set of facts. I think the judgment of the District Court was correct and should be affirmed.