Duff v. Allegheny Valley Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 03 November 1879
• Citation: 91 Pa. 458
• Parties: Duff <I>versus</I> Allegheny Valley Railroad Co.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

91 Pa. 458

DuffversusAllegheny Valley Railroad Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 24, 1879.

November 3, 1879.

October 24th 1879.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY and STERRETT, JJ.GREEN, J., absent

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Venango county: Of October and November Term 1879, No. 124.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Isaac Ash and James D. Hancock, for plaintiffs in error.—If the court below is sustained, this court must reverse its rulings in Hydraulic Works Co.v. Orr, 2 Norris 333;Oakland Railway Co. v. Fielding, 12 Wright 320;Railway Co. v. Caldwell, 24 P. F. Smith 421.

If the agents of the company, in violation of the rules of the company, permitted the deceased to ride, the company cannot repudiate the acts of its agents so as to free themselves from responsibility for negligence: Redfield on Railways, 3d ed., vol. 1, p. 510;Jones v. Western Vermont Railway, 27 Vt. 110;Lackawanna and Bloomsburg Railroad Co. v. Chenewith, 2 P. F. Smith 382;Powell v. Pennsylvania RailroadCo., 8 Casey 414; Idem v. McCloskey's Administrators, 11 Harris 526.

E. S. Golden, for defendant in error.—The case of Flower v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 19 P. F. Smith 213, is conclusive of this question.The rules of the company prohibited the boy from being upon the train, whether he was there by invitation of the conductor or the fireman.Rule No. 117, governing the conductors, is as follows: "They will not pass any person without a ticket or pass from the proper officers of the company; and it will be considered sufficient cause for the dismissal of any conductor who shall allow a free passage to any person without having such ticket."See alsoKirby v. Pennsylvania RailroadCo., 26 P. F. Smith 506.

It is clear from the evidence that the conductor never permitted this boy to ride upon the train, but that he was there by invitation of the fireman, who was his half-brother.Even if the boy was upon the train colluding with the conductor, he could not recover."A person riding upon a train of a railroad company without the knowledge of the company's employees, or in collusion with them or otherwise, knowingly in violation of the regulations of the road, cannot recover damages for injuries received while so riding:" Toledo, W. & W. Railroad v. Brooks, 81 Ill. 292.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered November 3d 1879, PER CURIAM.

This was an action by a parent to recover damages...