Railroad Company v. Skinner

Decision Date27 September 1852
Citation19 Pa. 298
PartiesRailroad Company <I>versus</I> Skinner.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

H. Wright and Bentley, for defendant in error.—The company would be liable for negligence, even when exercising a right: 8 Barr 366, Railroad Co. v. Yeiser. The cow was not a trespasser upon the road. She was kept at pasture, and let out in the evening to be milked, and if she was killed by the negligence of the engineer, an action would lie. There was evidence from which the jury might reasonably infer negligence. The company could have prevented the accident by fencing their road. They have merely the right of way, and should use it so as not unnecessarily to interfere with the rights of others.

The opinion of the Court, was delivered Sept. 27, 1852, by GIBSON, J.

An action for such an injury as is laid in this declaration is founded in negligence, of which there was not a particle of proof at the trial. The Company was using its chartered privilege in the usual way, and its act was lawful. Doubtless case may be maintained for negligence in conducting a railway train as well as in conducting any other vehicle, as was ruled in Bridge v. The Grand Junction Railway, 3 M. & W. 244; but what is such negligence has not been entirely determined. In Aldridge v. The Grand Western Railway, 4 Scott, N. R. 150, S. C. 1 Dowl. N. S. 247, an action was maintained for suffering sparks to fly from the engine to a bean-stack; and this is all we have for it in the shape of decision. No doubt a company is answerable for gratuitous damage; but what evidence was there of such damage in this case? Absolutely none. The testimony is consistent, and it shows that the train was going at the usual speed; that it was within three hundred feet of the spot when the cow jumped suddenly from the ditch to the track; that the engine was instantly reversed and the signal given to brake; and that alacrity could do no more. The retropulsive power at the disposal of the engineer, was applied in vain. Had he been able to stop the train in time to save the cow, he could not have done it without perilling the passengers. Granting what one of the witnesses testified, that the cow might have been seen at the distance of fifty rods by the way side, and granting that the train might have been stopped within it; yet the engineer was not bound to stop it. He had no reason to apprehend that she would leap into the jaws of death, or that it was necessary to anticipate her.

But high above this stands the impregnable position that a railway company is a purchaser, in consideration of public accommodation and convenience, of the exclusive possession of the ground paid for to the proprietors of it, and of a license to use the greatest attainable rate of speed, with which neither the person nor property of another may interfere. The company on the one hand, and the people of the vicinage on the other, attend respectively to their particular concerns, with this restriction of their acts, that no needless damage be done. But the conductor of a train is not bound to attend to the uncertain movements of every assemblage of those loitering or roving cattle by which our railways are infested. Any other rule would put a stop to the advantages of railway travelling altogether. And for what deprive the country of one of the best improvements of this most wonderful age? For no more than to enable a few unpastured cows to pick up a scanty subsistence in waste fields and lanes. If the bullocks, cows,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Clement v. Adams Express Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • July 20, 1910
    ...The law will not allow damages for an injury caused concurrently by plaintiff's own negligence and defendant's negligence: Railroad Co. v. Skinner, 19 Pa. 298; Heil v. Glanding, 42 Pa. 493; Catawissa R. Co. v. Armstrong, 49 Pa. 186; Stiles v. Geesey, 71 Pa. 439; Edwards v. P. & R. R. R. Co.......
  • Devereux v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1914
    ...was in refusing to take off nonsuit. Judgment affirmed. Stevens Heckscher, of Duane, Morris & Heckscher, for appellant, cited: Railroad Co. v. Skinner, 19 Pa. 298; North Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Rehman, 49 101; Ely v. Pittsburgh, Etc., Ry. Co., 158 Pa. 233; Strader v. Monroe Co., 202 Pa......
  • Wright v. The Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1903
    ... ... upon the presumption of the statute, that mere killing of the ... stock by a railroad company is presumptive evidence of ... negligence; this presumption was rebutted by defendant by ... positive, uncontradicted testimony, and ... 197, 44 N.W. 1049; Hanna v. Railway Company ... (Ind.) 119 Ind. 319, 21 N.E. 903; Railway Company v ... Skinner, 19 Pa. 298 at 303, 57 Am. Dec. 654; St ... Louis, etc., Co. v. Monday (Ark.) 49 Ark. 257, ... 4 S.W. 782 at 784; Chicago, etc, Ry. Co. v ... ...
  • Bunnell v. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1896
    ...Co. v. Bentley, 66 Pa. 30; Robinson v. Railroad Co., supra; Gay v. Winter, 34 Cal. 153; Hoyt v. City of Hudson, 41 Wis. 105; Railway Co., v. Skinner, 19 Pa. 298; Bennett v. Railway Co., 19 Wis. Counsel for the appellant insist that the court erred in charging the jury as follows: "The plain......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT