Miller v. W. Jersey & S. R. Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Citation71 N.J.L. 363,59 A. 13
PartiesMILLER v. WEST JERSEY & S. R. CO.
Decision Date07 November 1904

Action for personal injuries by Howard W. Miller against the West Jersey & Seashore Railroad Company. Verdict for plaintiff. Heard on rule to show cause. Rule made absolute.

Argued June term, 1903, before GUMMERE, C. J., and DIXON, HENDRICKSON, and PITNEY, JJ.

John W. Wescott, for plaintiff.

Joseph H. Gaskill, for defendant.

GUMMERE, C. J. The plaintiff was a passenger on the road of the defendant company, holding a ticket from Philadelphia to Paulsboro. His route was by ferry to Camden, and thence by rail to his destination. The terminal of the defendant company's railroad at Camden is in the station of the Amboy Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company at that place. While the plaintiff was standing on one of the platforms in the train shed of this station, waiting for his train, which had not come in, an employé of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, who was hauling a truck load of baggage to one of that company's outgoing trains, carelessly ran the truck over the plaintiff's foot. To recover for the resulting injury, this suit was brought At the trial the plaintiff had a verdict.

The main question presented by this rule is the liability of the defendant for the plaintiff's injury. It is clear that the doctrine of respondeat superior has no application in a case like that now under consideration. There was no such privity existing between the defendant and the employé of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company whose careless act produced the injury complained of as to render the defendant answerable for his acts. Its liability, if it existed at all, must have resulted from its failure to exercise that high degree of care for the safety of the plaintiff which its duty as a common carrier required. But while it is true that the duty of protection which a carrier owes to its passenger requires it to exercise very great care to safeguard the latter against injury not only from the acts of its own employés, but also from those of strangers, its responsibility in the one case is much broader than in the other. As to the acts of its servants, the rule that the master must respond applies; but, as to the acts of strangers, the carrier is responsible only for those which might have been reasonably anticipated, or, as some of the decided cases put it, naturally expected. Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hinds, 53 Pa. 512, 91 Am. Dec. 224; Flint v. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 34 Conn. 554...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Sorenson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 24, 1918
    ...... negligent operation by the lessee ( Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Jolly , 31 Tex. Civ. App. 512 [72 S.W. 871];. Miller v. West Jersey & S. R. Co. , 71 N.J.L. 363 [59. A. 13]. The effect of these is that the lessor remains liable. under conditions which are not ......
  • Meyonberg v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 9366.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 19, 1947
    ...seen the assailant enter the train. In the course of its opinion, the court which decided the Kinsey case cited Miller v. West Jersey etc. R. Co., 1904, 71 N.J.L. 363, 59 A. 13, a case on which defendant has relied strongly, as standing for the principle that the carrier would be liable if ......
  • Spalt v. Eaton, s. 416, and 417.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 15, 1937
    ...Central R. Co., 62 N.J.Law, 7, 42 A. 486, 56 L.R.A. 508, affirmed 63 N.J.Law, 356, 46 A. 1099, 56 L.R.A. 508; Miller v. West Jersey & Seashore R. Co., 71 N.J.Law, 363, 59 A. 13; same case on appeal, 79 N.J.Law, 499, 76 A. 973; Lehberger v. Public Service Railway Co., 79 N.J.Law, 134, 74 A. ......
  • Kinsey v. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co., 413.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 17, 1943
    ...with the nonperformance of its duty to exercise a high degree of care for the safety of its passengers-citing Miller v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 71 N.J.L. 363, 59 A. 13; Id., 79 N.J.L. 499, 76 A. 973; Kalleberg v. Raritan River R. Co., 91 N.J.L. 222, 102 A. 350; Seckler v. Pennsylvania R.......
  • 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