Chi., B. & Q. R. Co. v. Landauer

• Decision Date: 21 March 1894
• Citation: 58 N.W. 434,39 Neb. 803
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. v. LANDAUER.

39 Neb. 803

58 N.W. 434

CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

v.LANDAUER.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 21, 1894.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. By the statutes of this state, a common carrier is made an insurer of the safety of its passenger, except as against the gross negligence of such passenger, or his violation of some rule of the carrier brought to such passenger's notice.

2. Common carriers of passengers should be held to the strictest accountability, and be required to exercise the highest degree of care and forethought of which the human mind is capable. This rule is founded on principles of public policy, and enforced by the courts, for the protection of the traveling public.

3. When the proof shows that one was a passenger of a common carrier, and, while such passenger, was injured, the law raises the presumption of the carrier's liability from the fact of the injury. But this presumption is not a conclusive one; it is such a presumption as, in the absence of all evidence as to the cause of the passenger's injury, would render the carrier liable. And in such case, when the carrier shows that the passenger was injured by stepping from its running train, the presumption of liability raised by law against the carrier is overthrown, and it then devolves upon the passenger to show some justifiable reason for such action to relieve himself from the imputation of gross negligence; and the supposition or belief of the passenger that the train was standing still when he took the step which injured him is not competent evidence from which the jury may find that the passenger was not negligent, unless accompanied by evidence tending to show circumstances rendering this supposition reasonable, or at least excusable, as, in the absence of such evidence, no reasonable mind could honestly say that the passenger was not guilty of gross negligence, and a verdict for such passenger would be without evidence to sustain it.

4. The former opinion in this case, reported in 54 N. W. 976, and 36 Neb., on page 642, adhered to.

On rehearing. For former report, see 54 N. W. 976.

RAGAN, C.

Minnie Landauer sued the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company for damages for an injury which she alleges she sustained through that company's negligence while a passenger on one of its trains. She had a verdict and judgment in the district court, and the railway company prosecuted a petition in error to this court, where the judgment of the district court was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. Miss Landauer's counsel then filed a motion for a rehearing, suggesting, in effect, that the judgment of reversal was erroneous, because the finding of the jury on which it was based had for its support competent evidence. On this suggestion a rehearing was accordingly granted, and the cause has again been fully examined.

The reported opinion of the case is Railroad Co. v. Landauer, 36 Neb. 642, 54 N. W. 976. By the statutes of the state, carriers of passengers are made insurers of their passengers' safety, and liable for all injuries sustained by such passengers, unless it be shown that the injuries were caused by the gross negligence of the person injured, or his violation of some rule of the carrier brought to such passenger's notice. On the trial of the case at bar, the undisputed evidence showed that the railway company was a common carrier; that Miss Landauer was a passenger on one of its trains, and, while such passenger, was injured. In the absence of all further proof, this would have entitled the passenger to damages, as the law presumes the carrier's liability from the fact of the passenger's injury. But this presumption is not a conclusive one; it is such a presumption as, in the absence of all evidence as to the cause of the injury, would render the carrier liable. After Miss Landauer had proved that the railroad company was a common carrier, that she was a passengeron its train, and that she was injured, the burden then fell to the carrier to show that her injury was the result of her gross negligence. The question then is, does the record show that the carrier made such proof? The undisputed evidence in the record is that the train on which Miss Landauer was a passenger stopped at the station where she was to alight; that, after it had again started on its way, she went out of the coach, upon the platform in front thereof, stepped down on one of the steps of the car, and, after the coach had passed the station platform, deliberately “stepped out into the air,” and was...