Court Opinion

ID: 9827792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:51:28.230111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:36.802313
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In this ease the undisputed fact was that the theft occurred from the outside of the car at night, through a window, while the car was in motion. Presumably the curtains to plaintiff’s berth and others were down, so that a watch directed to the inside of the ear could not have detected the act of the thief. The watch that would- have been necessary in this case was to watch the outside of the car, and we are unable to hold that as a matter of law it was the duty of defendant’s servants to maintain a watch of that character. Circumstances might exist at certain places, or the servants might have certain information, requiring the outside of the car to be watched, in the exercise of reasonable care; but whether or not the circumstances existed here was a disputed question of fact. It would be absurd to hold that servants of k sleeping car company owe its patrons, while sleeping, the duty of watching the outside of the cars for thieves at all times and places, and yet this is the effect of a charge that was given in this case and complained of by the fifth assignment. The vice in the charge is its impropriety in the particular case. It would have told the jury that a watch such as was calculated to prevent the theft from the outside should have been maintained, when the question, under the circumstances Of this ease, was one entirely for the jury.
We think the other grounds of the motion are not well taken.
Motion overruled.