Farish & Co. v. Reigle

• Decision Date: 04 September 1854
• Citation: 52 Va. 697
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: FARISH & CO. v. REIGLE.

52 Va. 697

FARISH & CO. v. REIGLE.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

September 4, 1854

1. Carriers of passengers by stages are liable for injuries resulting from the slightest negligence on the part of the driver or proprietor of the stage; and they are bound to use the utmost care and diligence of cautious persons to prevent injury to the passengers.

2. Where a passenger is injured by the upsetting of the coach the presumption is, that it occurred by the negligence of the driver; and the burden of proof is on the proprietors of the coach, to show that there was no negligence whatsoever.

3. Though the proprietors of the coach may show that it was reasonably strong, with suitable harness, trappings and equipments of sufficient strength, and properly made, and that the driver was careful, of reasonable skill and good habits, with steady horses not like to endanger the safety of passengers; yet, if the upsetting of the coach is caused by the running off of the horses, and such running off of the horses might have been arrested if the utmost care and diligence of very cautious persons had been exercised, the proprietors of the coach are liable for the injuries sustained by a passenger.

4. If the coach is upset by the running off of the horses, and if they ran off not because they were accidentally frightened but because the blocks were out of the brake, causing the stage to run upon them; and if the running off of the horses might have been prevented if the horses had been properly harnessed, or if the utmost care and diligence of a cautious person had been used to secure the blocks in the brake, the proprietors are liable.

5. Carriers of passengers by stages are bound to provide not only good coaches, harness, & c. of the kind used on their line, but they are bound to provide such as will best secure the safety of the passengers.

6. If the coach is upset in consequence of having too much baggage on the top, the proprietors are liable for any injury sustained by a passenger by such upsetting of the coach.

7. In actions by passengers against carriers, for injuries sustained, the judgment of the jury as to the amount of the damages, must govern, unless the damages allowed are so excessive as to warrant the belief that the jury must have been influenced by partiality or prejudice, or misled by some mistaken view of the merits of the case.

This was an action on the case in the Circuit court of Shenandoah county by John Reigle against William Farish & Co. stage owners, to recover damages for an injury sustained by the plaintiff by the upsetting of the defendants' stage. The plaintiff who lived in Pennsylvania, took a passage in the defendants' stage to go from Staunton to Winchester; and he proved that after leaving Woodstock, a short distance below that town, the stage was turned over and he was very much injured; his head was severely cut, and one of his legs was broken immediately above the ankle, the small bone having passed through the muscles of the leg and also through his boot and clothes. He was confined at a house near the place of the accident for six months, during which time he suffered very severely, and for a part of the time was occasionally delirious. At the time of the trial, which was a year after the occurrence, his leg was not entirely healed, and was shortened, the ankle joint was swollen and stiff, and he was obliged to use crutches; and the physician who attended him expressed the opinion that the joint would continue to be stiff, and he would be a cripple for life. He was also subjected to considerable expense; having paid his physician's bill of two hundred and eighty dollars, and to the man at whose house he was confined, one hundred and fifty-four dollars and twelve cents.

The defendants proved that the stage used on the occasion was a good one, and the gearing was good of its kind. The horses were also proved to be steady, and the driver a very good prudent and careful driver, and a perfectly sober man: He was examined as a witness. He stated that he took charge of the stage at Red Banks, nine miles above Woodstock. That he then looked at the blocks in the brake, and was satisfied they were in their proper position; and they held well and worked well from thence to Woodstock. The passengers dined at Woodstock; and he there looked at the blocks again to see if they were in proper condition, but he did not at either place strike them with his hatchet, which it is the general habit to carry along with them for the purpose of fixing the blocks when they require it; nor did he take hold of them. A short distance from Woodstock the road descends for some distance. When he went to use the brake at the hill, he found that the blocks were out. It appears from the evidence that the running of the stage on the horses frightened them, and they commenced to run; and for some part of the way over which they ran, and at the place where the stage was upset, there was a precipice on the right side of the road, and a hill on the left. The driver described his efforts to stop the horses, in which he failed. He said that he then tried to keep the middle of the road, hoping to be able to pull up on reaching a hill before him; but that the hind wheels of the coach began to slip, and were nearly over the precipice; and whilst he was endeavoring to avoid it, the coach was upset. He stated further that the stage, in going down the hill and around the turns, rocked very much from side to side, and just before turning over on the left, had been strongly tilted to the right, and falling back, tilted the other way and seemed to him to have been for some distance on the left wheels before it went entirely over. He stated further that he had no occasion to use the brake after he left Woodstock until he commenced descending the hill, and made no experiments to ascertain if the blocks were still in. The first time he attempted to use the blocks, he found they were both out. This was about half a mile or a little more from the tavern in Woodstock.

The witness had no recollection as to the amount of the baggage on the top of the stage, or the number or size of the trunks. He found it all on and under the canvas when he took charge of the coach, and had no occasion to examine or handle it. It appeared that there were nine passengers inside the coach the plaintiff was sitting with the driver, and there was a negro man on top. At the place where the coach was upset the road was smooth, though it was descending.

The plaintiff proved that there was no breeching on the horses; and one witness introduced by him, who was from Maryland or Pennsylvania, stated that he had been from a boy engaged in staging, and had quit the business about ten years before the trial; that he considered it unsafe to rely upon the brake alone without breeching on the horses: That breeching was used on the National road. Several witnesses were introduced by the defendants, who stated that they had been engaged in the business of staging for from eighteen to thirty years, some of them in Virginia and two in Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia; that breeching was of no advantage where the brake was used, and that since the introduction of brakes breeching had been abandoned. One of them stated that economy was not the object in dispensing with breeching; that they had sometimes received harness from the manufacturer at the north with breeching, and had taken it off and hung it up as surplus harness. This witness further stated that the blocks would bounce out in very dry weather.

After the evidence had been introduced, the plaintiff moved the court to instruct the jury:

1. That passenger carriers are liable for injuries resulting even from the slightest negligence on the part of the coachman or proprietor of the stage, and that they are bound to use the utmost care and diligence of cautious persons to prevent injury to passengers.

2. That if the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff was injured by the overturning of the coach, the prima facie presumption is, that it occurred by the negligence of the coachman, and the burden of proof is on the proprietors of the coach to establish that there was no negligence whatsoever; and that although this prima facie presumption may be repelled by defendants proving that the coach was reasonably strong, with suitable harness, trappings and equipments of sufficient strength, and properly made, and that the driver was careful, of reasonable skill and good habits, with steady horses, not likely to endanger the safety of passengers; yet, if the jury believe from all the evidence that the running off of the horses caused the overturning of the coach, and that such running off of the horses might have been arrested if the utmost care and diligence of very cautious persons had been exercised, that then the defendants are liable in damages to the plaintiff.

3. If the jury believe that the plaintiff was injured by the upsetting of the stage, and that the upsetting was caused by the horses running off; that the horses ran off, not because they were accidentally frightened, but because the blocks were out of the brake, causing the stage to run upon them: And if the jury further believe that such running off of the horses might have been prevented if the horses had been properly harnessed, or if the utmost care and diligence of a cautious person had been used to secure the blocks in the brake, that then the defendants are liable in damages.

4. If the jury believe that the coach was upset in consequence of having too much baggage on the top of the coach, that the defendants are liable for the injury sustained by the plaintiff because of such upsetting.

The court gave the 1st, 2nd and 4th instructions...