Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr

Citation83 Pa. 332
PartiesHydraulic Works Company <I>versus</I> Orr <I>et ux.</I>
Decision Date05 February 1877
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ. WILLIAMS, J., absent

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term 1875, No. 111.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Samuel Dickson and John C. Bullitt, for plaintiff in error.— The questions raised are simply whether the defendant owed any duty to the plaintiffs to keep the entrance to their property closed, and the platform in any different condition from what it was.

The mere fact that the injury was sustained without fault on the part of parents or child does not establish the liability of the defendant, nor would the fact that the defendant had been guilty of carelessness in keeping the platform in the condition it was make out a right of recovery on the part of the plaintiffs. Negligence, in the legal sense, means a falling short in some duty towards the plaintiff, and that duty can only arise out of some contract obligation, express or implied, in which case it does not extend beyond the parties to the contract; or out of some confidence or trust reposed, as where an express or implied license or invitation has been held out; or out of some general duty towards the public at large, thereby including the individual.

The numerous cases in which railroad companies have been held liable for injuries to persons on their track rest upon the fact that they had reason to expect that the track might be used as a thoroughfare: Kay v. Railroad Company, 15 P. F. Smith 269; Railroad Company v. Lewis, 29 Id. 33.

So, too, in the cases where persons have been injured upon the premises of another, there has been the express or implied license to enter, which raised the obligation to inflict no injury: Hargreaves v. Deacon, 25 Mich. 6, cited in Wharton on Negligence, note to sect. 344; Zoebisch v. Tarbell, 10 Allen 385; Frost v. Grand Trunk Railway, Id. 387; Coe v. Platt, 5 E. L. & E. 491; Lygo v. Newbold, 24 Id. 507; Southcote v. Stanley, 38 Id. 295.

To make the owner of a lot adjacent to a highway liable to one falling into a pit or hole on his premises, it must abut on the highway so as to interfere with its lawful use: Barnes v. Ward, 9 C. B. (67 E. C. L.) 392; Hounsell v. Smyth, 7 C. B. N. S. (97 E. C. L.) 731; Gautret v. Egerton, Law Rep. 2 C. P. 371. The platform in question was twenty-four feet back from the street, in the private yard of the defendant. It did not abut on the highway, and no use of the highway as a highway could be interfered with by its existence. No machine in the factory was more entirely private than this platform, and, undisturbed, it was perfectly safe and harmless, and the owner had a right to assume that no one would trespass upon or meddle with it: Abbott v. Macfie, 2 H. & C. 744; Mangan v. Atterton, Law Rep. 1 Ex. 239.

The rule that a child of tender years cannot be guilty of contributory negligence has nothing to do with this question. The verdict of the jury establishes that this child used all the discretion that could be expected of him, but there was no reason to anticipate that he would come into the yard of defendant or put a hand upon the platform. He may not have been to blame for what he did, nor his parents for letting him run as he was used to run, but more is necessary to make the defendant responsible.

Robert E. Pattison and John Cochran, for defendants in error.— Was not the defendant guilty of negligence in erecting this platform without putting a fastening thereon? The alley was broad and opened and abutted upon a public street.

A jury alone can determine what is negligence and whether it has been proved: McCully v. Clarke, 4 Wright 406; Turnpike Co. v. Railroad Co., 4 P. F. Smith 345; Kay v. Railroad Co., 15 Id. 274; Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Lewis, 29 Id. 33.

Chief Justice AGNEW delivered the opinion of the court, February 5th 1877.

It is true that where no duty is owed no liability arises. If therefore one leaves a stick of timber standing upright against his wall, or an open pit in his private yard to which others have not access, and a person strays in without invitation, or comes in without right, and pulls down the timber upon himself, or falls into the pit, he can have no action against the owner of the yard for the alleged negligence. He had no business there and the owner owed him no duty. But it has been often said, duties arise out of circumstances. Hence, where...

To continue reading

Request your trial
89 cases
  • Ryan v. Towar
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1901
    ...6 N.E. 310, 10 N.E. 70, 58 Am. Rep. 387. Nor is it only in cases of turntables that this principle is applied. The case of Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr, 83 Pa. 332, an instructive case. See, also, Gramlich v. Wurst, 86 Pa. 79, 27 Am. Rep. 684. This subject was again reviewed by the supreme co......
  • Blackburn v. Southwest Missouri Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 13, 1914
    ...reason to apprehend danger, owing to the peculiar situation of his property, and its openness to accident, the rule will vary.' [Hydraulic Co. v. Orr, 83 Pa. 332.] makes no difference, where the circumstances give rise to duty, that the plaintiff was 'technically a trespasser.' [Schilling v......
  • Edgington v. The Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern R. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1902
    ...60 Ark. 545 (31 S.W. 154, 46 Am. St. Rep. 216); Harriman v. Railroad Co., 45 Ohio St. 11 (12 N.E. 451, 4 Am. St. Rep. 507); Hydraulic Works v. Orr, 83 Pa. 332; Schilling v. Abernathy, 112 Pa. 437 (3 A. 792, Am. Rep. 320); Kinchlow v. Elevator Co., 57 Kan. 374 (46 P. 703); Price v. Water Co.......
  • Capp v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1913
    ...507; Daley v. N. & W. Railroad Co., 26 Conn. 591; Bransom v. Labrot, 81 Ky. 638; Powers v. Harlow, 53 Mich. 507, 19 N.W. 257; Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr, 83 Pa. 332; Whirley Whiteman, 1 Head. (Tenn.) 610." The other cases cited announce the same rule of law, and no special good would be acc......
  • 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