Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Louise Adams, No. 413
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Brewer |
| Citation | 24 S.Ct. 408,48 L.Ed. 513,192 U.S. 440 |
| Docket Number | No. 413 |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1904 |
| Parties | NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner , v. LOUISE H. ADAMS and Frank H. Adams |
v.
LOUISE H. ADAMS and Frank H. Adams.
A statute of Idaho reads as follows:
'When the death of a person, not being a minor, is caused
Page 441
by the wrongful act or neglect of another, his heirs or personal representatives damages against the person causing the death; or, if such person be employed by another person who is responsible for his conduct, then also against such other person. In every action under this and the preceding section, such damages may be given as, under all the circumstances of the case, may be just.' Idaho Rev. Stat. § 4100.
Jay H. Adams resided in Spokane, Washington. He was a lawyer and the attorney of several railway companies, though not in the employ of petitioner. He was a frequent traveler on petitioner's and other railways. On November 13, 1898, he, with a friend, started on one of petitioner's trains from Hope, Idaho, to Spokane. The train consisted of an engine and eight cars, those behind the express car being in the following order: smoking car, day coach, tourist sleeper, dining car, Pullman sleeper. All were vestibuled except the tourist sleeper immediately in front of the dining car. It had open platforms, as an ordinary passenger coach. Shortly after leaving Hope, Mr. Adams, then in the smoking car, went back to the dining car for cigars. To reach the dining car he passed through the day coach and the tourist sleeper. After buying cigars he left the dining car and went forward. This was the last seen of him alive. His body was found the next day opposite a curve in the railroad track about six miles west of Hope. There was no direct testimony as to how he got off the train, whether by an accidental stumble, or by being thrown therefrom through the lurching of the train, which was going at a high rate of speed. The road from Hope to the place where the body was found is in Idaho. He was riding on a free pass containing these provisions: Conditions.
This free ticket is not transferable, and, if presented by another person than the individual named thereon, or if any alteration, addition, or erasure is made upon it, it is forfeited, and the conductor will take it up and collect full fare.
Page 442
The person accepting this free ticket agrees that the Northern Pacific Railway Company shall not be liable, under any circumstances, whether of negligence of agents or otherwise, for any injury to the person, or for any loss or damage to the property, of the passenger using the same.
I accept the above conditions. Jay H. Adams.
This pass will not be honored unless signed in ink by the person for whom issued.
This action was brought by the plaintiffs, the widow and son of the deceased, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Washington. Verdict and judgment were in their favor for $14,000, which were sustained by the court of appeals for the ninth circuit (54 C. C. A. 196, 116 Fed. 324), and thereupon the case was brought here on a writ of certiorari. 187 U. S. 643, 47 L. ed. 346, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 856.
Mr. C. W. Bunn for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 442-444 intentionally omitted]
Page 444
Mr. Reese H. Voorhees and C. S. Voorhees for respondents.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:
[Argument of Counsel from pages 444-448 intentionally omitted]
Page 448
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:
As the negligence of the company, found by the jury to have
Page 449
caused the death, as well as the resulting death, took place in ldaho, the plaintiffs' right of action rests on the statute of that state. What is the scope and meaning of that statute? The circuit court charged the jury:
'You are not to consider what was the duty of this carrier toward Mr. Adams who was killed, but the duty which the defendant owed to these plaintiffs; and the duty which they have the right to exact from the defendant in this case is the same duty which the defendant company owed to the public in general.'
In other words, although it should appear that the company in no respect failed in its duty to the deceased, it could yet be held responsible to the widow and son for the damages they suffered by reason of the death. But that is a misconception. Their right of action arises only when his death is caused by 'the wrongful act or neglect.' If there be no omission of duty to the decedent, his heirs have no claim. Suppose an individual is wantonly assailed, and, in order to protect his own life, is obliged to kill the assailant,—may the heirs of the decedent have that act of taking life, rightful as against the decedent, adjudged wrongful as against them, and recover damages from one who did only that which his duty to himself and family required him to do? The statute does not provide that when one's life is taken by another the heirs of the former may recover damages, but only when it is wrongfully taken,—that is, when it is taken in violation of the rights of the decedent; wrongful as against him. 'Neglect' stands in the same category with 'wrongful act.' It implies some omission of duty. The trial court in this case charged the jury:
'Negligence, to create a liability on the part of parties in fault, must be a failure to observe the degree of care and prudence that is demanded in the discharge of the duty which the person charged with the negligence owed under the peculiar circumstances of the case to the injured party.'
As stated in Pollock on Torts, p. 355, quoting from Baron
Page 450
Alderson in Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. 11 Exch. 784, 25 L. J. Exch. N. S. 213:
"Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deggs v. Asbestos Corp., No. 91969–1
...acted in self-defense, no recovery under the wrongful death act was available. Id. at 435, 153 P. 355 (citing N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Adams, 192 U.S. 440, 24 S.Ct. 408, 48 L.Ed. 513 (1904) ). We remanded for retrial with proper instructions. Id. at 444, 153 P. 355. We reached similar holdings in......
-
Mcneill v. Durham & C R. Co
...totally wanting in a legal consideration. Therefore this case does not come within the principle laid down in Northern Pac. R. v. Adams, 192 U. S. 440, 24 Sup. Ct. 408, 48 L. Ed. —, where the pass was recognized as a lawful and valid contract for free transportation. By citing and distingui......
-
Sassaman v. Pennsylvania R. Co., No. 8408.
...584, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1(7). 4 Boering v. Chesapeake Beach R. Co., 193 U.S. 442, 24 S.Ct. 515, 48 L.Ed 742; Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Adams, 192 U.S. 440, 24 S.Ct. 408, 48 L.Ed. 513. 5 See Sheridan v. New Jersey & New York R. Co., Err. & App., 104 N.J.L. 622, 141 A. 811; Demarest v. Palisades ......
-
Massaletti v. Fitzroy
...493-495, 23 L. Ed. 374;Indianapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291, 295-296, 23 L. Ed. 898;Northern Pacific Ry. v. Adams, 192 U. S. 440, 24 Sup. Ct. 408, 48 L. Ed. 513. But in the case of Railroad Company v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 382-383, 21 L. Ed. 627, Bradley, J., said: ‘W......
-
Stone v. Union Pac. R. Co., 813
...The appellant contends that the release barred all right of recovery, in support of which we are cited to Nor P. Ry. Co. v. Adams, 192 U.S. 440, 24 S.Ct. 408, 48 L.Ed. 513 Boering v. Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co., 193 U.S. 442, 24 S.Ct. 515, 48 L.Ed. 742, Quimby v. Boston, etc., R. R., 150 Mass.......
-
Francis v. Southern Pac Co, 400
...respondent would not have been liable to decedent for damages caused by ordinary negligence, relying on Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Adams, 192 U.S. 440, 24 S.Ct. 408, 48 L.Ed. 513. It concluded that respondent had the same defense against the heirs. We granted the petition for a writ of cert......
-
Mcneill v. Durham & C R. Co
...totally wanting in a legal consideration. Therefore this case does not come within the principle laid down in Northern Pac. R. v. Adams, 192 U. S. 440, 24 Sup. Ct. 408, 48 L. Ed. —, where the pass was recognized as a lawful and valid contract for free transportation. By citing and distingui......
-
Buckley v. Bangor & A. R. Co.
...Muldoon v. Seattle City, etc., R. Co., 7 Wash. 528, 35 Pac. 422, 22 L. R. A. 794, 38 Am. St. Rep. 901; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Adams, 192 U. S. 440, 24 Sup. Ct. 408, 48 L. Ed. Some courts hold that, while the carrier, in cases of gratuitous carriage, may exempt itself for liability for negl......