Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Effinger

• Citation: 299 F. 950
• Decision Date: 25 June 1924
• Docket Number: 3117.
• Parties: PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO. v. EFFINGER.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

299 F. 950

PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO. v. EFFINGER.

No. 3117.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

June 25, 1924

Katzenbach & Hunt, of Trenton, N.J., for plaintiff in error.

Samuel Schneider, of New York City (Humphrey J. Lynch, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.

Before WOOLLEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District judge.

DICKINSON District Judge.

The parties, plaintiff and defendant, will be designated as they stood at the trial in the District Court, unless otherwise indicated. There are two errors assigned. The first relating to trial rulings on evidence is subdivided under seven heads and the second is directed to the submission of the cause to the jury. There were no exceptions taken to the charge of the trial judge. Both parties accepted and commended the charge as a correct statement of the law; the plaintiff without qualification, and the defendant on the assumption that the evidence excepted to was properly admitted, and that there was evidence of negligence to go to the jury. None in the first list of assignments are pressed, and they need not be considered.

The plaintiff in error rests its complaint wholly upon the absence of evidence of negligence. The phrase 'res ipsa loquitur' has borne the brunt of the argument. Negligence may be a fact to be found by a jury. When it is, it is an inferred fact-- a fact inference drawn from other facts and circumstances. It may be in the nature of a sentence pronounced by the law upon the existing facts, as that some acts of commission or of omission are per se negligent acts. Negligence may likewise be imputed to enforce some policy of the law, or may be a fact presumed in the regulation of the burden of proof. Finally, there is a justified presumption imputation, or inference of negligence from the fact of injury or loss alone, whenever the act from which it resulted, if performed with care, can be, and ordinarily and commonly is, performed without injury or loss to any one. In this the law follows the experience of our everyday lives. 'There must have been carelessness or this would not have happened' is an expression everywhere heard and accepted. 'Res ipsa loquitur' is a phrase or elliptical expression nominative sometimes of a principle or doctrine of the law, but used also as expressive of an ultimate fact finding, which is a logical fact deduction from other facts and circumstances. The case of a...