Gillis v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

Decision Date02 July 1868
Citation59 Pa. 129
PartiesGillis v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

May 29 1868

1. The platform of a railroad company at a station is in no sense a public highway. There is no dedication to public use as such.

2. The platform is for the accommodation of passengers, and being unenclosed, persons have the privilege but have not the legal right of walking over it for other purposes.

3. After requesting such persons to leave, the company may remove them by whatever force is necessary.

4. A trespasser may maintain an action for a wanton or intentional injury by the owner of the land.

5. The owner of property is not liable to a trespasser or to one who is on it by mere permission or sufferance, for negligence of himself or servants, or for that which would be a nuisance in a public street or common.

6. To persons who come upon a platform to meet or part with passengers, or who stand in such relation to the company as requires care, the company is bound to have the structure strong enough to bear all who could stand upon it.

7. The owner of a house is bound to have the approach to it sufficient for all visitors on business or otherwise, but if a crowd gathers on it to witness a passing parade, & c., and it breaks down, though not sufficient even for its ordinary use, he is not liable to one of the crowd who might be injured.

Before STRONG, READ, AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria county: Of May Term 1868.

This was an action on the case commenced, November 20th 1866, by David Gillis against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company for injuries sustained by him by the breaking down of a platform of the defendants at the Johnstown station, Cambria county.

The declaration contained four counts. The first count charged that the defendants, being a corporation for conveying freight and passengers, and having the sole control of the passenger depots, platforms, & c., along the road for the mutual accommodation of themselves and the public, built a platform at the Johnstown station, bridging a chasm over the bed of an abandoned canal, on which large numbers of people were in the habit of congregating, " as a matter of general custom; " and it was the duty of the defendant to construct the platform so as to make it safe and keep it in good repair; that it had come to the knowledge of the defendants that the timbers of the platform were rotten, and " insufficient to support a large multitude of people," but that they notwithstanding insufficiently repaired it; that on the 14th of September 1866, " on the occasion of the visit of Andrew Johnson, President, & c and suite, to Johnstown," the defendants furnished a special train, and made a special time-schedule for their accommodation, by which the train was required to stop a longer time than usual for passenger trains at Johnstown, &amp c., the company notifying the people at Johnstown and vicinity of the time of arrival and departure of the train at Johnstown, the stoppages being made by the direction of the defendants to give the people an opportunity of receiving Mr Johnson and hearing him; that it had been publicly made known that wherever Mr. Johnson and his company had stopped large numbers of people congregated, and thereupon it became the duty of the defendants " to have the platform aforesaid made sufficiently strong to bear and uphold as many people as might congregate thereon on the occasion aforesaid; " that the defendants, knowing the insecure condition of the platform, did not use due diligence to have it made secure but permitted and invited " a large multitude of people to congregate" thereon without notifying them or the plaintiff of its insecure condition; that the platform broke and precipitated the multitude with the plaintiff into the chasm, by which he was injured and wounded. The second count averred that the company carried Mr. Johnson and his party by agreement and for hire, and that the platform was part of the company's highway; the count was otherwise substantially as the first. The fourth count averred that the plaintiff went to the station on the occasion of Mr. Johnson's visit, at the defendants' special instance and request; that the train was not stopped at the usual place of stopping, but about two hundred yards beyond it, without giving notice to the people assembled, and to the plaintiff, and that the " plaintiff and the multitude were compelled to change their position to get a better view of the party," thereby causing them to congregate more numerously " on the insecure part of the platform; " --otherwise substantially as in the first count. The third count averred that the plaintiff was a passenger on the train, and got off the train on to the platform which broke, & c.

The facts necessary for an understanding of this case appear to be substantially the following:--

At or near the Johnstown station of the defendants, their railroad crosses the canal constructed by the state, at an angle of about 25 degrees--the canal being now abandoned; the passenger station and its platform are further west than the canal; eastwardly of this platform is a township bridge over the canal; that part of the canal between the railroad track and the township bridge is also planked over, making a continuous platform from the passenger station to the track and the township bridge. On the 14th of September 1866, Mr. Johnson and his party were coming from Pittsburg, on their way from Chicago, on a special train of the defendants, which was provided without compensation. The train was running on a special time-schedule, and at the request of Mr. Johnson, or some of his party, it was arranged that it should stop about five minutes at each of several points along the road, Johnstown amongst others, that the people might have an opportunity of seeing and saluting them. It was generally known through the newspapers that the party would pass Johnstown on that day, but no previous notice of the time of the arrival of the train had been given by the company. A clerk in the telegraph office, however, mentioned the time in a printing-office in Johnstown, and before the arrival of the train handbills had been posted through the town announcing the precise time of arrival, and a very large crowd of people assembled at the station and on the platform. The train at first stopped at the usual place near the passenger station, but it being supposed that in that position the people would not have a good opportunity to see and hear Mr. Johnson and his party, who were on the hindmost car, the train was immediately moved a short distance further east. The crowd pressed onwards, collecting in very great numbers near the hindmost car, on that part of the platform over the canal, when the platform gave way and all on it, with the plank and broken timbers, were precipitated into the canal, a depth of about twenty feet. The plaintiff was amongst those who thus fell. Two or three were instantly killed; some died afterwards from the effects of the fall, and many were more or less seriously injured. The plaintiff was badly hurt. He brought this suit to recover damages for the injuries then received.

There was a very large amount of evidence bearing on the averments in the 1st, 2d and 4th counts of the declaration.

There was no evidence at all on the 3d count, the defendant not having been on any passenger train of the defendants that day.

The plaintiff submitted 27 points, which were all answered substantially in the negative.

The defendants submitted 2 points, which were approved. It is not necessary to give the points.

The charge of Judge Taylor, in connection with the foregoing statement, will give an understanding of the case both as to the facts and the principles of law ruled by him. The charge was as follows:--

" This is an action on the case in which David Gillis, the plaintiff, claims from the defendant damages for injuries to his person, caused by the falling of the platform under the crowd which assembled at the station in Johnstown on the 14th September 1866, on the occasion of President Johnson passing through that place.

The evidence shows that the time of the arrival of the special train at the station in Johnstown had been made known, and that a large crowd, described on the plaintiff's declaration as ‘ a large multitude of people, ’ had been attracted there to see the President, or the distinguished gentlemen composing his party. The train was run a short distance beyond the station-house for the purpose, it would seem, of affording the party a better opportunity of being seen and heard from the rear platform of the hindmost car, which was stopped near where the track crosses the old canal, at an angle of about 25 degrees, that part of the canal between the railroad track and a township bridge over it, being also bridged by the railroad company and laid with plank, constituting part of their platform. When it was observed that the train was passing the station-house, the anxious and restless crowd followed it, collecting behind or near the rear car, upon that part of the platform which covered the canal, until it gave way beneath the weight of their increasing numbers, precipitating all upon it, with the plank and broken timbers, into the chasm that opened below, a depth of about twenty feet. The result can be readily imagined. Two or three were killed almost instantly; nearly all of them were more or less injured; some, as it proved afterwards, fatally; many of them seriously. The plaintiff, David Gillis, went down with them; he was soon discovered by his friends, bleeding and in an unconscious state, and extricated and taken home, where he was confined to his bed for about two weeks. * * *...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • Thompson v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1907
    ... 67 A. 768 218 Pa. 444 Thompson v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, Appellant Nos. 256, 257 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania June 4, 1907 ... Argued: ... W. B ... Linn, for appellant. -- The defendant was not liable: ... Gillis v. R.R. Co., 59 Pa. 129; Duff v. R.R ... Co., 91 Pa. 458; Flower v. R.R. Co., 69 Pa ... ...
  • Money v. Travelers' Hotel Co
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 7, 1917
    ... ... Actionable negligence consists in a breach of duty to the plaintiff. Mc-Ghee v. Railroad, 147 N. C. 145, 60 S. E. 913, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 119. "In order to sustain an action, the ... been approved in the following decisions of other courts, and by the text-book writers: Gillis v. Railroad, 59 Pa. 129, 98 Am. Dec. 317; Zoebish v. Tarbell, 10 Allen [Mass.] 385 [87 Am. Dec ... ...
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Bates
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1915
    ... ... his cotton delivered for shipment over appellant's ... railroad; and he requested appellee to come onto the depot ... platform, to talk with him of a business ... arrival of the President of the United States (Gillis v ... Pa. Co., 59 Pa. 129, 98 Am.Dec. 317), and on that of the ... friendly visitor to the ... ...
  • Brague v. Northern Central Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • July 19, 1899
    ... ... walking between the tracks of the defendant's railroad at ... a place called Carpenter's, by being struck by a moving ... locomotive with a tender ... inflicted on him by the owner:" Gillespie v ... McGowan, 100 Pa. 144. See also Gillis v. Pa. R.R ... Co., 59 Pa. 129 ... Plaintiff's ... counsel urge that the principles ... ...
  • 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