Story Case

Simon Duncan engaged passage from Gainesville, Florida, to Dalton, Florida, over the line of the Florida West Coast Railway Company. All of the trains of this company consisted of combination freight and passenger cars. The road ran through a logging country, and its principal business was that of carrying logs and lumber, so that its equipment was crude. During the journey Duncan was quite seriously injured about the face by the jerking and jolting of the cars. To recover damages for this injury, he brought suit against the company. It put in defense that the jerking and jolting was ordinarily incident to these trains, and that Duncan was familiar with these acts. Is this a good defense?

Ruling Court Case. Knight Vs. Portland Railway Company, Volume 65, Maine Reports, Page 234

In this case the plaintiff, Knight, purchased a ticket from the company at Lawrence, Massachusetts, entitling her to go from Lawrence to Belfast, Maine. She was entitled to go by cars to Portland, and from Portland to Belfast by boat. The train on which she traveled arrived in Portland at 11 P. M. She was compelled to walk a considerable distance over a wharf in going from the depot to the steamboat. This wharf was not lighted and, being unable to see her way, she stepped into a hole, fell and severely injured herself. She sues for damages.

The questions in this case were: (1) was she at this time a passenger? (2) If so, what degree of care was owing to her by the company? In regard to the first question, the court was of the opinion that she was still a passenger. She had purchased a ticket from Lawrence to Belfast. This imposed a duty on the company to see her safely from point to point, and it could not relieve itself of this duty by compelling her to walk a part of the distance.

In answer to the second question, Mr. Chief Justice Appleton said: "The degree of care and caution required of the carriers of passengers was correctly stated by the presiding justice and in accordance with the authorities. The care to be used depends somewhat upon the value and importance of what is to be carried. The greater the value to be transported, the greater the need of care and caution on the part of the carrier. If the business is of the highest moment, then the skill, care and diligence should be in proportion thereto.

"Mr. Chief Justice Earle used the following language: 'The action is grounded on negligence. The railway company is bound to take reasonable care, and to use the best known precautions in practical use for securing the safety and convenience of passengers.' When carriers undertake to convey passengers by the powerful and dangerous agency of steam, public policy and safety require that they should be held to the greatest possible care and diligence." Judgment was given for Knight.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

When it is once determined that a person has become the passenger of a given carrier, whatever the nature of that carrier may be, the law holds that a very high degree of care is owed to the person, until the relationship has been terminated. It is impossible to state the degree of care which is owed; what will constitute a violation of the duty owed to the passenger will depend upon the circumstances of each individual case. But the courts say that a carrier owes a much higher degree of care to its passengers than it owes to persons who are not passengers. Also, it is of importance in determining whether or not a person is a passenger, because of the rule that the burden of proof is upon the person injured to show negligence if this relation does not exist.

The standard of care in each case has proper regard to the circumstances. Thus, a railroad operating a combination train through a logging country and having limited fitness and capacity to carry passengers, will not be required to exercise the standard of perfection of a company operating fast express passenger trains. The highest degree of care must be exercised in all cases; but that which constitutes the highest degree of care in one case may not be in another, because of the difference in circumstances. If the defense of the railroad company in the Story Case is true as to the facts, this will excuse it from liability. The highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of the train was exercised.