Benson v. Central Pacific Railroad
Synopsis
Negligence—Peovince of Joey.—Where evidence of negligence consists of circumstances from which inferences may be drawn for or against it, it is the province of the jury to determine whether there is negligence or not.
Id. — Speed of Railboad Train.—Fifteen miles per hour is not reckless or dangerous speed for a railroad train between stations outside of cities and towns.
Id.—Right to Use of Tbaok—Duty to Pebsons upon Tback.—A railroad company has a right to the use of its track, and may ordinarily presume that no one is upon it to be injured. It owes to persons wrongfully there no duty to look out for them that they may not be injured. Whatever duty it owes such persons arises after, and because they have been discovered there by its servants.
Id. — Cabbying Passenger beyond Stations—Breach of Contract—Walking Back upon Tbaok—Proximate Cause of Injury.—The failure of a railroad company to permit a passenger to alight at a station to which the company had contracted to carry such passenger, and its act in directing the passenger to alight at the next station, and walk back to the place of destination, although a violation by the company of its contract for which the passenger is entitled to an action of damages, does not give such passenger the right to walk back over the track to the proper station, and is not the proximate cause of an injury occasioned to the passenger while so walking upon the track.
Id.—Injury to Child—Custody of Father—Fright of Child—Liability of Railroad Company__The failure of a railroad company to leave a girl six years of age at the station to which it had agreed to carry her, and its act in carrying her to another station beyond that at which she wished to get off, is not such negligence on the part of the company as to render it liable for an injury occasioned to her while walking back upon the track to the latter station, where it appears that the child was in the custody and control of her father, and when first seen by the engineer of the train causing the injury, was in the act of stepping from the track upon which the train was running toward the other parallel track, and did in fact reach a place of safety, but, becoming frightened, broke away from her father and ran in front of the engine, and where it appears that as soon as she was seen to be in peril every possible effort was made to prevent the injury.
The Court. This action is brought by the plaintiff, an infant, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her while walking upon the roadway of defendant, by being run into by a locomotive operated by defendant.
The case was tried by a jury, which returned a verdict for defendant, and the appeal is from the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial.
Plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove the following facts:—
Plaintiff, a child of but six years of age, with her father and the other members of her family, took passage on a train of defendant for Watt’s Station, in Alameda County. As the train approached Watt’s Station, the whole family arose and took positions at the door of the car, so as to be able to step off the train without delay, and immediately on the stoppage of the train at the station proceeded to leave it; but the stop was so short that but part of the family were able to get off, and the train moved away with the father and the plaintiff and her brother still on it. While the family was thus endeavoring to get off, the conductor of the train was on the platform of the car, and when the train began to move, the father asked him, “Why didn’t you let me off?” and the conductor thereupon told the father, “You cannot get off here; you have got to go to the next station, only a short distance, and you can walk back when you get to the next station.” When the next station, Emery, was reached, the father, with plaintiff and her brother, left the train. The father had never before been on the part of the railroad between Watt’s and Emery Stations, and on stepping off looked up and down the railroad. He saw no cars. He could observe no other route than the railroad to get back to Watt’s Station, and in fact there was no other way; one side of the railroad right of way being the waters of the bay, and the other a slough, running through marsh and swamp. There were two tracks, and supposing that if a train should come along [47]behind him it would be on the east track, as the train which he had just left was occupying the west track, the father started to wa/k southerly along the east track to Watt’s Station, carrying tiza baby on one arm, and holding plaintiff by the hand; and he had thus proceeded for a distance of five hundred or six hundred feet south of Emery when he heard a noise back of him. Looking in the direction of the noise he saw a train, but owing to the existence of a curve in the road, it was impossible for him to determine on which track the train was running. A moment later he looked again at the train, and saw that it was on the east track, the same on which he was walking. He then left that track, crossing to the west track, and had entirely cleared the east track, continuing all the time to hold plaintiff by the hand, when the plaintiff, frightened by the approach of the train, while it was yet one hundred and fifty or two hundred feet from her, broke away from her father, and ran back to and on the east track, where she was struck by the flying train, and received the injuries complained of. The accident happened in broad daylight; the view of the railroad between the two stations, a distance of two thousand and sixty-two feet, was unobstructed; and a person standing at either station could see to, and some distance beyond, the other; and a person on the spot where plaintiff and her father were when the latter first heard the train, namely six hundred feet south of Emery Station, could easily be seen from the latter place. Plaintiff and her father were in fact noticed by the fireman of the train, according to the latter’s evidence, while they were still on the track on which the train was approaching them, and were seen by him to cross over to the other track; and they were observed by the engineer when about one hundred yards from the train; notwithstanding which the train, which had pulled out of Emery Station at a speed of fifteen miles an hour, continued such speed. Ho bell was rung, or whistle blown, or other signal given plaintiff, and no attention paid to her presence on the track, until the train was within one hundred and fifty feet of her, when an endeavor was made to stop it, but too late to be of use.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)