Burton v. West Jersey Ferry Co

• Decision Date: 20 April 1885
• Citation: 29 L.Ed. 215,5 S.Ct. 960,114 U.S. 474
• Parties: BURTON v. WEST JERSEY FERRY CO
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

114 U.S. 474

5 S.Ct. 960

29 L.Ed. 215

BURTON v. WEST JERSEY FERRY CO.

April 20, 1885.

Jerome Carty, B. Frank Clapp, and Mayer Suetzberger, for plaintiff in error.

Saml. Dickson and Richd. C. Dale, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, took passage at Camden, New Jersey, for Philadelphia, on a ferry-boat belonging to the defendant, a New Jersey corporation engaged in the business of transporting passengers, animals, and vehicles across the Delaware between those cities. On that trip the boat was unusually crowded with passengers. The river at the time was very full of ice, and it was difficult for the boat to get across and enter the ferry slip on the Philadelphia side. The wharf on that side was reached only after repeated efforts. In the attempt to land the boat was driven against the bridge with such force as to throw the plaintiff and a number of other persons (all of whom were standing during the passage across the river) with great violence upon the floor. The fall caused serious and, perhaps, permanent injury to the plaintiff. In this action she claims damages from the defendant upon the ground that her injuries resulted from the careless and negligent management of the ferry-boat by its agents and servants. The plaintiff made a case entitling her to go to the jury upon the issue as to the defendant's negligence. But there was, also, proof tending to show that the striking of the boat against the wharf on the Philadelphia side occurred under peculiar circumstances, and could not, perhaps, have been avoided by any diligence upon the part of the agents of the defendant.

When the evidence was concluded, and after the parties submitted their requests for instructions, the court delivered its charge upon the whole case, reading to the jury the instructions asked by either party that were approved, and accompanying them with such observations, by way of explanation or qualification, as it deemed necessary.

The third and fourth points submitted in behalf of plaintiff were overruled. They were as follows:

'Third. If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendants received the plaintiff as a passenger, and that they failed to provide her with a seat, or that she was unable to obtain a seat by reason of the crowded condition of the boat, and while standing in the cabin she was, without any fault of her own, thrown down and injured by a sudden shock to the boat, then the defendants are guilty of negligence, and...