Powell v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Citation: 32 Pa. 414
• Parties: Powell versus The Pennsylvania Railroad Company.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

32 Pa. 414

Powell versus The Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the District Court of Philadelphia.

Speakman, for the plaintiff in error.—No special agreement, however binding in its terms, can exonerate a corporation assuming the duties of a common carrier, from liability for damages, resulting from its own negligence: Camden and Amboy Railroad Co. v. Baldauf, 4 Harris 67; Goldey v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 6 Casey 242; Beckman v. Shouse, 5 Rawle 179; Laing v.

Colder, 8 Barr 479; Sager v. Railroad Co., 1 Am. Railway Cases 171; Addison on Cont. 516, &c. 2 Story on Cont. 225; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Co. v. Derby, 14 How. 486; Sullivan v. Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Co., 6 Casey 234; Reeves v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Co., Id. 454; Ritz v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 15 Leg. Int. 75.

Cuyler, for the defendants in error.—The defendants being held only for ordinary care and prudence, it would seem that the most liberal rule of law the plaintiff could ask for, would be that the company are liable, if they neglected to provide a well constructed spark arrester, or permitted their engines to be used and run without reasonable prudence and care. The ruling asked for by the plaintiff, would make the company absolute insurers against damage by fire; and is, in fact, the application of the harsh rule of the common law against common carriers, with unrelaxed vigour.

The opinion of the court was delivered by WOODWARD, J.

Whoever has been attentive to the course of decision in this court for the last few years, on questions between railroad companies and those whom they have injured in person or property, cannot have failed to observe, that on the one hand we accept no excuse from the party who obstructs the track or interferes with the transportation of the company, and on the other, that we hold companies bound to transport safely, or to respond in damages, except where the injury has resulted from the act of God, or the concurring negligence of the party complaining.

Skinner's Case, 7 Harris 298; Norton's Case, 12 Id. 466; and O'Brien's Case (N. P.), 15 Legal Int. 75, are instances of ruling upon the first branch of the alternative; whilst there are many cases that belong to the second branch: 6 Casey 234, 242, 454, and 7 Casey 358, 372.

The ground of these adjudications is, that railroads, though in some sense public highways, like turnpike roads, are committed by law to the management and control of corporations, who are bound to employ all necessary officers and agents, and to instruct them in their respective duties so as to secure to the public a safe transportation. The public, while entitled without distinction to travel upon railroads, are entitled to do so only in a particular manner, in vehicles controlled and managed by the company; and of the control and management of which, it would seem, the company are not allowed to divest themselves, even for the purpose of giving them up to another company: Angell's Law of Highways, § 370; and Beman v. Rufford, 6 Eng. Law & Eq. R. 106.

And this control and management of the cars extends to every part of the service; the receiving and discharge of passengers, and the loading and unloading of freight, as well as to the making up of trains, and conducting them over the road. In Reeve's Case, 6 Casey 464, it was said, the company are bound to employ all necessary agents, to instruct them properly in their duties, and to look to them for the performance of every act which the business of the road requires.

These principles are not more necessary for the safety of the public, than for the prosperity of railroad companies. If every man were permitted to occupy and use the tracks of railroads according to his own fancy or interests, or to dictate how cars should be loaded and arranged in the train, confusion and disaster, involving loss of life and injury to person and property, would ensue as inevitable consequences....