Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway Co. v. Hinds

• Decision Date: 13 May 1867
• Citation: 53 Pa. 512
• Parties: The Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway Company <I>versus</I> Hinds.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

53 Pa. 512

The Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway Company versus Hinds.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 13, 1867.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

J. H. Hampton, for plaintiff in error, cited 1 Chitty's Pl. 232; Stephen's Pl. 378-405; 1 M. & M. 218; 1 M. & S. 441; Com. Dig., Pleader, ch. 17; Co. Lit. 303; 2 B. & P. 267; Rex v. Horne, Cowp. 672; Andrews v. Whitehead, 13 East 107; Mayor v. Humphries, 1 C. & P. 251; McKinney v. Niel, 1 McLean 540; Pennsylvania Railroad v. Kilgore, 8 Casey 292; Same v. Zebe, 9 Id. 319; Same v. Vandever, 12 Id. 298; Burnet v. Dutton, 10 N. Hamp. 481; Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill 586; McKinney v. Niel, 1 McLean 540; Angell on Carriers, § 570.

T. M. Marshall, for defendant in error, cited Sullivan v. Reading Railroad, 6 Casey 234; Kennard v. N. J. Railroad Co., 9 Harris 206; Vinton v. Railroad, 11 Allen 304; U. S. v. Holmes, 1 Wall. Jr., 23.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 13th 1867, by WOODWARD, C. J.

The action is for an injury sustained by the plaintiff's wife whilst she was a passenger in the cars of the defendants; and what is peculiar in the case is the fact that the injury was not occasioned by defective machinery, or cars or road, or by anything that pertained properly to their business as transporters, but was caused by the fighting of passengers among themselves. Drunken and quarrelsome men intruded into the ladies' car in great numbers whilst the train stopped at Beaver station, and in the disgraceful fight which ensued among them, the plaintiff's arm was broken, and for this the railroad company is sued. Had the suit been against the riotous men who did the mischief, the right of recovery would have been undoubted, for it is not more the duty of railroad companies to transport their passengers safely than it is the duty of passengers to behave in a quiet and orderly manner. This is a duty which passengers owe both to the company and to fellow-passengers, and when one is injured by neglect of this duty the wrongdoer should respond in damages. But in such a case is the company liable?

There is no such privity between the company and the disorderly passenger as to make them liable on the principle of respondeat superior. The only ground on which they can be charged is a violation of the contract they made with the injured party. They undertook to carry the plaintiff safely, and so negligently performed this contract that she was injured. This is the ground of her action — it can rest upon no other. The negligence of the company, or of their officers in charge of the train, is the gist of the action, and so it is laid in the declaration. And this question of negligence was submitted to the jury in a manner of which the company have no reason to complain. The only question for us as a court of error, therefore, is whether the case was, upon the whole, one that ought to have been submitted. The manner of the submission having been unexceptionable, was there error in the fact of submission?

The learned judge reduced the case to three propositions. He said the plaintiff claims to recover —

1st. Because the evidence shows that the conductor did not do his duty at Beaver Station, by allowing improper persons to get on the cars.

2d. Because he allowed more persons than was proper under the circumstances to get on the train, and to remain upon it.

3d. That he did not do what he could and ought to have done to put a stop to the fighting upon the train, which resulted in the plaintiff's injury.

As to the first of the above propositions the judge referred the evidence to the jury, especially with a view to the question whether the disorderly character of the men at Beaver station had fallen under the conductor's observation so as to induce a reasonable man to apprehend danger to the safety of the passengers.

The evidence on this point was conflicting, but it must be assumed that the verdict has established the conclusion that the conductor knew that drunken men were getting into the cars. Let it be...