Heil v. Glanding

Decision Date17 February 1862
PartiesHeil v. Glanding.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

1862

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Schuylkill county.

This was an action of trespass by William Glanding against Henry Heil, to recover damages for injuries done to plaintiff by running over him with a train of coal cars, upon the Swatara Railroad, by reason of which the amputation of his foot became necessary; and also for the loss of a horse which was killed at the same time, by the alleged misconduct of the defendant.

The material facts of the case were these:--The plaintiff, in October 1855, was driving his horse, with a truck-car loaded with household goods, on the Swatara Railroad, leading from the town of Tremont, in Schuylkill county, to its junction with the railroad of the Union Canal Company, which terminates at Pinegrove. When a few miles from Tremont, he was overtaken by a train of seven cars loaded with coal running by gravity, which the defendant had undertaken to conduct to Pinegrove. The plaintiff, in his effort to save his horse, caught his foot between the rails at a switch, and had it crushed by the passing coal-cars, which ran over and killed the horse.

The coal-cars were part of a train which had passed down the road that morning, before the plaintiff started, and which became accidentally detached from the train in the town of Tremont. They were run down the road to be placed below the Mine Hill road, and while the cars were on the main track, in charge of an employee of the Swatara Railroad Company, the defendant got on the hind car, saying he wanted to go to Pinegrove. The brakeman got off the cars, put up the brake, and the defendant started with them.

There was considerable evidence as to the right of the plaintiff to be on the road with his truck, the substance of which was although he had notice from the company not to use the road he subsequently did use it, and paid the company toll for some of the freight which he hauled over it. There were four errors assigned to the admission and rejection of certain testimony, but they are not noticed in the opinion of this court.

The plaintiff requested the court to charge the jury,

1. If Henry Heil was unlawfully upon the road, and in consequence of his neglect or unskilful management of the train of cars which he had improperly taken in charge, the plaintiff, in order to save himself and his horse, was forced to jump from the truck upon which he was riding, and in his effort to save his property his foot was caught between the turn-out and the main road in such a manner as to prevent him from extricating it, and he was there held until the train in charge of defendant came along and crushed his leg, that defendant is liable, and the jury should find in favour of the plaintiff such amount of damages as will reasonably compensate him for his loss.

2. That, if the jury believe that plaintiff was suffered by the railroad company to be on their road engaged in the business of trucking, and that Heil, without right or authority undertook to run down a coal train to Pinegrove, and, for want of skill in managing said train, the cars ran off and overtook plaintiff, who had just sprung from his car to save himself and horse, and in that spring or any reasonable effort to save his horse or truck, his foot became fastened so that he could not extricate it, and while being so held the train upon which Heil was ran over plaintiff's foot and caused his injury, the plaintiff is entitled to recover for the loss of his foot.

The defendant's counsel also requested the court to charge the jury,

1. That, to enable the plaintiff in this case to recover, there must be the concurrence of negligence, or the commission of an unlawful act in Heil, and a reasonable care exercised by the plaintiff to avoid the injury; and although Heil may have undertaken to run the cars down without authority, and was incompetent to manage them, and, in the language of the plaintiff's witness, " the cars ran away with him," and ran over the plaintiff's foot, yet, if he saw Heil coming, and was warned by him to get out of the way or when out of the way went back to save his truck, he cannot recover for any injury done to his person, because, in that case, he was the author of the accident to himself, and took the responsibility upon himself.

2. If the jury believe the account given by Glanding to several of the witnesses, that he had gotten off the car, and unhitched his horse from the car after seeing Heil coming, and suffered the horse to stand untied or held, and when the cars approached upon which Heil was, went back to the track to get his car from the track, or to start it on the road, and by that means caught his foot in the rails, and thereby causing the injury to himself, he cannot recover for that injury from Heil; neither can he recover for the horse, if, after having him free from the car, he suffered him to run upon the road in the manner detailed by him. It was his duty, after being free, to keep himself and horse from the road, and he cannot make Heil pay for his reckless and imprudent conduct, and especially after being warned by Heil of the danger.

3. If Glanding was upon the railroad with his horse and truck, knowing the danger, and against the remonstrance and order of the railroad company, who had pointed out to him the impropriety of his travelling upon that road, and he refused to desist, but said he would take the risk and look out for himself, he was not acting as a prudent man would act, and was himself responsible for the injury received.

4. If there was negligence in the plaintiff in unduly exposing himself after he was warned of the danger, and had notice of the position of Heil, and of his inability to control the cars, he cannot recover, no matter what may have been the fault of Heil in undertaking to run the cars to Pinegrove without the ability to do so.

The court below (HEGINS, P. J.) presented to the consideration of the jury the following questions:

" 1. Had the defendant authority to take charge of the cars, and run them down the road?" intimating that he had not been so authorized by any one competent to give him this authority.
" 2. Had he the requisite skill, and did he run the cars with ordinary care and prudence, which he was bound to exercise, whether there with or without authority?

3. Had the plaintiff a right to be on the road?" which question was submitted to the jury under the evidence. And

" 4. Did the plaintiff act with ordinary precaution and prudence to avoid the accident?" which was also submitted as a question of fact for the jury.

The learned judge then proceeded: " If the jury believe that both were on the road without right, then they were both required to use ordinary skill, care, and prudence, and so if either was using the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rogers
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 25 Mayo 1891
    ...of the court, to fix the amount of damages. 51 Miss. 77; 9 Am. St. R. 770; 13 Ib. 846; Suth. on Dam. 730 et seq.; 4 Wait's Ac. & Def. 715; 42 Pa. 493. submit that mental anguish and injury to the feelings are elements of compensatory damages, and that plaintiff had a right to recover for th......
  • Heil v. Glanding
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 17 Febrero 1862

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