Oil Creek & Allegheny River Railway Co. v. Keighron

• Decision Date: 05 January 1874
• Citation: 74 Pa. 316
• Parties: The Oil Creek and Allegheny River Railway Co. <I>versus</I> Keighron.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 316

74 Pa. 316

The Oil Creek and Allegheny River Railway Co. versus Keighron.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 23, 1873.

January 5, 1874.

October 23d 1873.

Before READ, C. J., AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and MERCUR, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Venango county: No. 82, to October and November Term, 1873.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

W. McNair, for plaintiffs in error.—Unless Hines was the defendants' servant acting within the scope of his authority, they are not liable: Kerns v. Piper, 4 Watts 222; Bard v. Yohn, 2 Casey 487. To constitute Hines their agent they should have some control over him or right to discharge him: Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, sect. 73.

A man is answerable for the consequences of a fault only so far as they are natural and proximate and may be foreseen by ordinary forecast; and not for those which arise from a conjunction of his fault with other circumstances that are remote and extraordinary: Morrison v. Davis, 8 Harris 175; Scott v. Hunter, 10 Wright 192; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Kerr, 12 P. F. Smith 353; Ryan v. New York Central R. R. Co., 35 New York 210; Penna. R. R. v. Beale, 23 P. F. Smith 506; N. Penna. R. R. v. Heilman, 13 Wright 60.

J. H. Osmer (with whom was A. W. Covill), for defendant in error, cited Empire Transportation Co. v. Wamsutta Oil & R. Co., 13 P. F. Smith 14; Johnson v. Bruner, 11 Id. 58.

The opinion of the court was delivered, January 5th 1874, by MERCUR, J.

Two tank-cars, coupled together, were placed by the defendant below upon its track, at the Union Petroleum Company's place of business. Hines was the superintendent of the petroleum company. The cars were placed there to enable him to fill them with oil. They were put in his charge for that purpose. While thus loading, Hines had the exclusive charge of the cars. The railway company left none of its regular employees in charge or control of them. The mode of filling the cars is to insert a pipe, connected with the tank in which the oil is stored, so that the oil may flow into the top of the car, and turn the stopcock into the pipe. After the front car was filled, it was necessary to move it in order to advance the rear car sufficiently near to the tank to connect with the pipe. The probable necessity of this movement of the cars must have been known to the defendant below, yet it furnished Hines with none of its other employees to assist therein. Hines had had no experience in handling cars. The down grade towards the place of collision, and of the burning, was seventy feet to the mile. Where the cars stood, they were securely held by brakes. Hines found himself unable to start both cars together. He therefore disconnected them, and started the front car. It appears the brake upon this car was not in good condition. The dog would slip up, loosening its grasp. Hines was ignorant of its defective condition, and was unable to tighten the brake, or stop the car. It ran into a locomotive standing on the track. The collision caused the car of oil, locomotive, one or two other cars, and the house of the plaintiff below, to burn.

It is claimed, by the defendant below, that Hines should have moved the two cars together;...