Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. Barker

Decision Date01 December 1878
Citation4 Colo. 344
PartiesPULLMAN PALACE CAR CO. v. BARKER.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Appeal from District Court of Arapahoe County.

THE appellee, the plaintiff below, had judgment, on the verdict of a jury, in the sum of $1,480.00. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Messrs BUTLER & WRIGHT, for appellant.

Messrs SYMES & DECKER, for appellee.

ELBERT J.

This was an action on the case brought by Diana Barker against the appellant, for injuries sustained by reason of alleged negligence.

The controversy, as presented by the record, respects the extent not the fact of the appellant's liability. While the law, out of regard for human life and safety, exacts from the carriers of passengers the utmost care and skill, it refuses to take into consideration damage remotely resulting from a breach of their contract or neglect of their duty. The maxim is causa proxima, non remota spectatur.

In cases of contract as well as of tort, where no question arises of fraud, malice or oppression, the loss or injury for which compensation is sought must be the natural and proximate consequence of the alleged breach or wrongful act. Sedgwick's Measure of Dam. 57 et seq.; Shearman and Redfield on Neg., s 595 et seq.

What is the proximate cause of an injury in a legal sense is often an embarrassing question, involved in metaphysical distinctions and subtleties difficult of satisfactory application in the varied and practical affairs of life.

The proximateness required is not the greatest possible; the negligence to which the responsibility attaches may sometimes concur with or precede other agencies in producing an injury. A result may be physically, secondary and consequential, and yet in legal contemplation be proximate. As a consequence the rule is vague and of difficult application. As said by BRAMWELL, B., 'it is sometimes like having to draw a line between night and day; there is a duration of twilight when it is neither night nor day.' Each case of this description must be decided with reference to the circumstances peculiar to it.

The question as presented in the case at bar is not without difficulty.

The sleeping car of the appellant caught fire in the night and was burning, through the negligence of its employees; the appellee, with her husband, occupied a berth which the flames had already reached, when she was awakened. The suddenness of the alarm and the imminency of the danger from the smoke and approaching flames, left no time for the appellee to properly clothe herself; she left the burning car with but slight clothing, and in her stocking feet; in passing to the next car she was compelled to stand for a minute or two on the platform of the car; it was an extremely cold night in January, and by reason of this exposure she caught a severe cold which caused the cessation of her menses, and resulted in a long period of illness.

Was this illness, in legal contemplation, the proximate result of the negligence of the appellant, for which the appellee may rightfully demand compensation?

In the case of Milwaukee, etc., Railway Co. v. Kellogg, 4 Otto, 475, Mr. Justice STRONG says: 'The question always is, was there an unbroken connection between the wrongful act and the injury-a continuous operation? Did the fact constitute a continuous succession of events so linked together as to make a natural whole, or was there some new and independent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Roddy v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1891
    ... ... Transfer Co., 5 Mo.App ... 7; Kisler v. City, 100 Ind. 210; Car Co. v ... Barker, 4 Colo. 344; Scheffer v. Railroad, 105 ... U.S. 249; Cuff Ad. v. Railroad, 35 N. J. (6 ... ...
  • Beaty v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • April 19, 1916
    ...by Cobb, J., in Railway v. Webb, 116 Ga. 152, 42 S. E. 395, 59 L. R. A. 109: "As was said by Elbert, J., in Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Barker, 4 Colo. 344, 34 Am. Rep. 89: `What is the proximate cause of an injury in a legal sense is often an embarrassing question, involved in metaphysical d......
  • Baxter v. St. Louis Transit Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1906
    ... ... 345; ... Railroad v. Spirk, 70 N.W. 926; Hadley v ... Boxendale, 9 Exch. 341; Pullman Car Co. v ... Barker, 4 Colo. 344; Frazier v. Railroad, 81 ... Ala. 185; Butler v. Kent, 19 ... ...
  • Pullman Co. v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1919
    ...S. S. C. (24 L. Ed.) 259, p. 346; Ingraham v. Pullman Co., 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1087; 25 A. & E. Enc. (2 Ed.) p. 1123; Citing P. O. Car Co. v. Barker, 2 Col. 344, supra. On third proposition, we have only to say that inasmuch as the conductor had said nothing amiss to plaintiff and inasmuch a......
  • 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