Pittsburg & Connellsville Railroad Co. v. Pillow

• Decision Date: 04 January 1875
• Citation: 76 Pa. 510
• Parties: Pittsburg and Connellsville Railroad Co. <I>versus</I> Pillow.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 510

76 Pa. 510

Pittsburg and Connellsville Railroad Co. versus Pillow.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November __, 1874.

January 4, 1875.

November __ 1874.

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

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1874, No. 75.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

G. Shiras, Jr., for plaintiffs in error, cited Pittsb., Fort Wayne & C. Railroad Co. v. Hinds, 3 P. F. Smith 512.

There was no paper-book for the defendant in error.

Mr. Justice GORDON delivered the opinion of the court, January 4th 1875.

Upon a careful examination of the plaintiff's points we find them supported by the most ample authority, and hence conclude that the rulings of the court upon those points are throughout correct. In the case of Meier v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 14 P. F. Smith 225, Justice Agnew quotes approvingly the language of Judge Bell, in Laing v. Colder, 8 Barr 482, wherein he says, speaking of the duties which common carriers owe to the passengers whom they carry: "But though, in legal contemplation, they do not warrant the absolute safety of their passengers, they are bound to the exercise of the utmost degree of diligence and care. The slightest neglect against which human prudence or foresight may guard, and by which hurt or loss is occasioned, will render them liable in damages." It is said further in the same case: "Primâ facie, where a passenger, being carried on a train, is injured without fault of his own, there is a legal presumption of negligence, casting upon the carriers the onus of disproving it."

This is the rule when the injury is caused by a defect in the road, cars or machinery, or by a want of diligence or care in those employed, or by any other thing which the company can and ought to control, as a part of its duty to carry passengers safely, but this rule of evidence is not conclusive. The carrier may rebut the presumption, and relieve himself from responsibility, by showing that the injury arose from an accident which the utmost skill, foresight and diligence could not prevent."

We cannot perceive the force of the argument of the counsel for the plaintiff in error, wherein he endeavors to raise a distinction between accidents arising from negligence in the equipment or management of the train, and those arising from the misconduct of passengers upon it. If the employees of the road had no control or power over...