Court Opinion

ID: 9534684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:42:05.256405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:25.776172
License: Public Domain

Duncan, J.,
dissenting-. The charge in this case told the jury with respect to the rules received in evidence merely that “ the rules of the . . . railroad and the customs which they observed over the years are evidence as to the methods by which the railroad operated. ” There was no suggestion that the rules were evidence of the “ reasonable necessity for the conduct thereby prescribed ” (Topore v. Railroad, 78 N. H. 536, 537; Descoteau v. Railroad, 101 N. H. 271, 274), and the jury was told that the rules were no substitute “ for your own good judgment as to whether ... the railroad . . . was negligent. ” An instruction that “ whether or not the railroad employees complied with die rules ” was “ evidence of whether or not the . . . railroad was negligent ” was minimized by the emphasis placed on the issue of apparent necessity for assistance “ as far as the defendant’s agents were concerned, ” and an instruction to consider among odier circumstances “whether or not [the defendant’s agents] were available to assist [the plaintiff] at the time she should have been assisted. ” The latter instruction in particular was open to the interpretation that if the defendant’s agents were not then “ available to assist,” the necessity for assistance could be found not to have become apparent “as far as [they] were concerned. ”
In addition to rule 815 quoted in the majority opinion, anodier rule required passenger trainmen “ when in attendance upon their trains at stations ” to “ maintain an erect attitude near the steps of the car at which they are stationed except when assisting passengers. ...” Taken as a whole, the instructions operated to deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of the rules of the railroad, which were designed to require that assistance be made available to her regardless of what the train crew thought appropriate.
To the extent that the standard of reasonable care on the part of the railroad was set out in the charge, the defendant’s conduct was to be judged subjectively from the standpoint of what was reasonably apparent to the train crew, rather than objectively from the standpoint of reasonable care in the light of the rules requiring necessary assistance to be rendered. Thus, although die railroad itself had determined that reasonable care required that its agents make assistance available to passengers boarding its trains, the instructions made its duty depend upon whether it appeared to its agents that assistance should be made available. *377Yet it could be found that compliance with the rules would have placed a trainman in a position to aid the plaintiff when aid was needed.
The plaintiffs’ fourth and fifth requests for instructions were denied in form and in substance, and in my opinion this was prejudicial error.