Totten v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1882
• Parties: TOTTEN v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

11 F. 564

TOTTEN v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

January 1, 1882

Leon Abbett, for plaintiff.

James B. Vredenburgh and Edward T. Green, for defendant.

NIXON D. J., (charging jury.)

This is an action of trespass on the case, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant corporation to recover damages which he alleges that he sustained by reason of the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff is a machinist by trade, and was employed in the workshop of the defendant, at Jersey City, on the first day of November, 1880, repairing a boiler. While thus occupied an engine broke through the closed doors of the shop, struck the boiler on which he was working, and inflicted upon him injuries from which he now claims to be suffering. Two questions are at once presented for consideration: (1) Has any injury in fact been inflicted? (2) If so, was the accident one for which under the circumstances, the defendant corporation is legally liable?

I advise you to take up this case and consider these questions separately and in order. The first is, has the plaintiff in fact suffered injury?

You have heard his statement. The burden of proving this rests upon him. He must satisfy you to a reasonable certainty that some injury has happened to him from the negligence of the defendant before you come to the question of the amount of damages. The responsibility of deciding this is upon you. I express no opinion, but ask you to weigh all the evidence and to form your opinion from its character and weight. Commence with the beginning-- the time of the accident in the erecting house. Consider the testimony of the plaintiff and the other witnesses, who were cognizant of the condition of affairs then and immediately afterwards. Go with him to the hospital. Call to mind the statements of the physicians of the hospital as to their examinations and opinions.

Without dwelling upon the details of the evidence on this point, let me invite your attention to two notable events, which, as it seems to me, have an important bearing. I allude to the two examinations of the plaintiff-- the first, by Dr. Duryea, on the sixteenth of March, 1881, and the other, by Drs. Watson and Van Vorst, on the fourth of April-- within three weeks of each other.

Dr Duryea's first attention to the case was on the sixteenth of March. You heard his statement of the symptoms as he examined them. He fully describes the objective symptoms which he then found.

Drs Watson and Van Vorst had been more or less familiar with the case from the start. You will recollect what their testimony was as to the plaintiff's condition on the fourth of April.

There is a great discrepancy-- I have almost said a vital contradiction of the evidence of these physicians, which it is your duty to reconcile, if you can, and if you cannot, then to determine which you will believe. In determining this, if you have to determine it, it is proper that you should remember the relations which Watson bore to the company, and how far that relationship affected the truth of his testimony. But, at the same time, you should also recollect the relation of physician and patient which Duryea had with the plaintiff, and how far his judgment or candor was affected by it. So far as it appears, Dr. Van Vorst had no special connection with either of the parties, except so far as he had the relation of an assistant to Dr. Watson in the hospital of St. Francis.

After a patient review of all the evidence, if you conclude that the injuries of which the plaintiff complains have not been caused by the accident on the first of November, your verdict must be for the defendant. We must not allow our judgment or sense of justice to be perverted by our sympathies and feelings because the plaintiff happens to be a poor man and the defendant is a large corporation. The law recognizes no difference in regard to parties. All stand upon the same level in a court of law, and the court and jury must be careful to mete out exact justice to all, without regard to mere external condition and circumstances.

If you decide that the injuries, real or alleged, of the plaintiff did not flow from the accident, your verdict will be not guilty, and you need go no further, as the case ends here. But if you reach the conclusion that the plaintiff was injured by the accident, you will proceed to inquire whether the defendant is legally responsible. This is a mixed question of law and fact. So far as the law is concerned, the court is under the responsibility of stating it to you, and...