Court Opinion

ID: 9453502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:15:33.378292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:41.228093
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION for REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs have petitioned for rehearing, alleging, inter alia, that our decision is contrary to an assumption made by the court in Rodriguez v. American R.R. Co. of Puerto Rico, 1932, 43 P.R.R. 472. In that case the court held that a railroad that owned a station and maintained an approach thereto for the use of the public in which it had erected iron posts, and had failed to provide illumination, owed a duty of care to a pedestrian. The assumption the court made, in finding the question of liability to be close, was that plaintiff’s case would have been stronger had the injured party been a passenger. In the case at bar we have held that the approach, viz., the steps, was not shown to be defective. In considering the other claims made against Pan American we stated that they fell outside the scope of the “highest duty of care” owed by a carrier to its patrons. *666Rodriguez v. American R.R. Co. of Puerto Rico, supra, has no bearing on either of these issues.
The petition for rehearing is denied.