Ricard v. North Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 10 March 1879
• Citation: 89 Pa. 193
• Parties: Ricard <I>versus</I> North Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

89 Pa. 193

RicardversusNorth Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 19, 1879.

March 10, 1879.

February 19th 1879.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, WOODWARD, TRUNKEY and STERRETT, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Philadelphia county:Of January Term 1877, No. 224.

Lewis D. Vail and R. C. McMurtrie, for plaintiff in error.— The act was intended to meet the case that arises when one railroad makes use of the railroad and premises of another.It was intended to apply to those who were engaged or employed on the work of the road or roads.Where there is a common-law liability, and an Act of Assembly releases that liability unless certain circumstances are set up, it is incumbent upon the party who thus sets up the act to show that the plaintiff is within the circumstances, otherwise the railroad here would be released from all liability except to passengers.If plaintiff was a wrongdoer, no liability was on the company.If he was there lawfully, and no liability accrued, then our contention is right.The act meant to put all persons engaged in the management of trains, no matter by whom engaged, on a common plane as fellow servants.To give the act any other construction would be to say that persons obliged to go to a railway depot would be in the position of fellow servants or of employees.

J. McGregor Gibb and William Rotch Wister, for defendant in error.—The act applies to a class of persons lawfully engaged or employed.There is no reference to other companies' employees in the act.The act has received judicial construction: Mulherrin v. RailroadCo., 31 P. F. Smith 356;Kirby v. Railroad Co., 26 Id. 506;Gerard v. Pennsylvania RailroadCo., 5 W. N. C. 251.See alsoWyatt v. Great Western Railroad Co., 6 B. & S. 709;Crutey v. RailwayCo., 3 Thomp. & Cook 244.

Mr. Justice GORDONdelivered the opinion of the court, March 10th 1879.

Whatever else may be said of the Act of April 4th 1868, Pamph.L. 58, the charge of obscurity cannot be brought against it, neither can it be said that the legislative intent is not expressed with sufficient force."When any person shall sustain personal injury or loss of life while lawfully engaged or employed on or about the roads, works, depots and premises of a railroad company, or in or about any train or car therein or thereon, of which company such person is not an employee, the right of action and recovery in such cases against the company shall be such only as would exist if such person were an employee."

Nothing can be more clear than the...