Court Opinion

ID: 9812027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:35:54.572866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:57.666619
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.,
concurring: I concur in the conclusion reached, but dissent from some of the reasons given. The Judge charged the jury, I think, correctly, that “If the defendant by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence could have discovered the child on the track in time to have stopped the train, it was its duty to have done so; or if the defendant in the exercise of reasonable or ordinary care and prudence could have discovered that a child of the age of twenty-two months, or very small, was going towards the track or running along very near it, so as to render it probable that it would go on the track, and discovery could have been made in time to have stopped the train, it was defendant’s duty to stop, and defendant would be guilty of negligence, in failing to stop. The engineer has a right to *716suppose that an adult will leave the track, and continue the speed, but when a child, without discretion or intelligence, is seen or could have been seen, its presence must be regarded. If the child came on the track suddenly or unexpectedly, so near ahead of the train that it .could not be discovered in time to stop the train in the exercise of ordinary care, then there is no negligence; or if it came on the track when the engineer and fireman were engaged in their necessary duties in the cab, and they were engaged long enough to prevent them from observing the child, then there was no negligence. The engineer’s first duty to passengers is to keep his engine in proper condition, and also to keep a proper lookout on the track, and for objects so near it as to make their presence a probable obstruction or interruption. If the sight of the child was prevented by the necessary attendance by the engineer and' fireman to matters inside the cab, and this continued until the time they reached the child or came so near it that the engine could not be stopped in the exercise of ordinary care, the defendant would not be guilty of negligence”; and upon that instruction the jury found against the defendant. While the general underlying principles of the law do not change, their application in the changing conditions of life and the progress and development of the age mpst change. Originally, when air-brakes were unknown, and even after they were first introduced, a railroad company would not have been held liable for an injury caused by not stopping within the distance air-brakes would have made possible. The law is otherwise now. So, recently Congress by an enactment has followed some Courts and anticipated others by making railroad companies liable after a given date for all injuries caused by failure to use automatic couplers on freight as well as on passenger cars. And there are many similar instances of the progress of the *717law, hand in band, with the progress and development of the times. So, when the speed of railway trains was a fraction of what it is now, and the population sparse, it was not recklessness to fail to keep such a lookout as is now necessary to prevent accidents. But now that the number and speed of railway trains are vastly increased, and the population of the country also, a better lookout is required. A failure to keep a lookout, which in a given case the jury find would have prevented an accident, notwithstanding the negligence of the plaintiff in being helpless on the track, is recklessness in a high degree. It has always been held, and by all Courts, semper et ubique, that though the plaintiff has been negligent, if, notwithstanding' that fact, injury by the defendant could have been avoided, but the defendant through recklessness or wantonness committed the injury, the defendant is liable.
There is no disposition in the Courts to throw restrictions around railroads in the free use of their tracks. They are becoming more and more important. Over their tracks roll daily the commerce of a people, the transportation of a continent. But with development comes the duty of increased care to avoid injury. Air-brakes, automatic couplers, Miller platforms, electric head-lights, heavier rails and other improvements permit accelerated speed, and the public demands it. But with the increased speed comes the duty of a better lookout. It is recklessness not to have it. The company should be held liable for every injury which could bo avoided by a proper lookout, whether as to passengers, children, live stock, or people temporarily disabled and lying on the track. As to whatever it strikes a railroad engine is as deadly as a cannon ball. When there is target firing, though due notice is given, if a drunken man wanders across the field of fire and is lying asleep at foot of the target, but by proper lockout could be seen, yet *718for want of it he is struck and killed, I apprehend this would be deemed recklessness. The same holds true as to a drunken man down and helpless on the track, when by keeping a proper lookout he would be seen and his death or injury avoided.