782 



RAILROAD ACCIDENTS, LAW OF. 



injuries committed beyond the jurisdiction of 

 the State, on a vessel belonging to the State, 

 and suffered by one of its citizens. In this 

 connection it is important to notice the con- 

 stitutional provisions of four States : The Con- 

 stitution of Arkansas provides that all railroads 

 shall be responsible tor all damages to persons 

 or property, under such regulations as may be 

 prescribed by the Legislature (Const., 17, 12), 

 and that the Legislature shall, by suitable laws, 

 require all railroads to adopt and provide the 

 necessary means and appliances to secure the 

 safety of passengers (Const., 19, 18). The Con- 

 stitution of Colorado provides that it shall be 

 unlawful for any person or corporation to re- 

 quire of its employes any contract or agree- 

 ment whereby the person or corporation is 

 released from liability on account of personal 

 injuries received by such employes (Const., 

 15, 15). The Constitution of Texas provides 

 that every person or corporation that may 

 commit a homicide, through willful act, or 

 omission, or gross neglect, shall be responsible 

 in exemplary damages to the surviving hus- 

 band, widow, or heirs, notwithstanding any 

 criminal proceedings that may or may not be 

 had (Const., 16, 26). The Constitution of Ar- 

 kansas also provides, in addition to the pro- 

 visions previously mentioned, that no act of 

 the Legislature shall limit the amount to be 

 recovered for injuries resulting in death ; and 

 that in case of death resulting from injuries, 

 the right of action shall survive for the benefits 

 of such persons as the Legislature may prescribe 

 (Const., 5, 32). The Constitution of Pennsyl- 

 vania has a similar provision, with the addition 

 that no act shall prescribe any limitation of time 

 within which such suits may be brought against 

 corporations different from those fixed by gen- 

 eral laws for actions against natural persons. 



Where there is a statute to keep alive the 

 civil action to which, under the common law, 

 the deceased was entitled, the question arises 

 whether another statute, providing a remedy 

 by fine, or criminally by the State, applies also. 

 It has been held in Maine that the proceeding 

 by indictment holds only where the death was 

 instantaneous, the view being taken that one 

 remedy ends where the other begins, in order 

 to prevent the application of two independent 

 and conflicting remedies to the same injury ; 

 but in Massachusetts the remedy by indictment 

 is held to apply to an injury resulting in death, 

 whether the death is immediate or not, although 

 when it is not immediate, a civil action might be 

 brought by the personal representative ; and in 

 New York the statute is held to apply whether 

 death is instantaneous or consequential. Where 

 death is not immediate, there is permitted in 

 some States an election of remedies one being 

 an action at common law by the injured per- 

 son for the pain and suffering and disability 

 arising from the injury, and the other being an 

 action for the benefit of relatives under the 

 statute; but they treat judgment in one action 

 as a bar to the other. Other States permit 



two concurrent remedies one for the injured 

 person's cause of action, with damages limited 

 to the time of his death ; and the other for the 

 pecuniary injury resulting to the survivors, 

 who are entitled to the amount recovered 

 under the statute. But it is not to be pre- 

 sumed that the statute contemplated a double 

 payment for the same injury, and therefore an 

 action can not be maintained for an injury for 

 which the deceased person received full satis- 

 faction in his lifetime. 



The same rules of law and evidence apply to 

 the trial of an indictment or to a civil action 

 for the benefit of relatives, as to a civil action 

 brought by the injured person ; thus the same 

 rules determine the relative rights and duties 

 of the company and the passenger, and the 

 negligence or contributory negligence of each 

 must be determined in the same manner. Any 

 amount that may be received by the relatives, 

 for whose benefit the action is brought, upon 

 policies of insurance on the life of the deceased, 

 is not to be admitted in reduction of damages. 

 The circumstances of the deceased, his occupa- 

 tion, health, age, habits, skill, and capacity for 

 business, the amount of his property and even 

 his annual earnings and the probable duration 

 of his life, have been admitted to show the pe- 

 cuniary injury that the survivors have suffered. 

 Proof has been permitted of a father's occupa- 

 tion with reference to its probable effect in de- 

 termining the business and earnings of a child 

 for whose benefit the action was brought. 

 Juries have no small difficulties to contend 

 with in assessing damages when they have be- 

 fore them evidence as to average profits or the 

 amount of the life-income of the deceased, and 

 have the assistance of accountants and annuity- 

 tables ; but these difficulties are trifling com- 

 pared with those in which they must become 

 entangled when attempting a pecuniary esti- 

 mate of the loss of the care, protection, and 

 assistance of a father. In whatever light we 

 look at the subject, either of law or morals, we 

 become perplexed in attempting to pursue it. 

 It is permissible to give evidence of the char- 

 acter of the deceased, and in many cases this 

 would be of a most painful nature. A railroad 

 company has no right to inflict wanton injury 

 on persons who are unlawfully on its property ; 

 and where human life and limb are concerned, 

 that injury may well be treated as wanton, 

 subjecting the company to damages, when, al- 

 though able to do so, the company has neglect- 

 ed to stop what it has had good reason to be- 

 lieve would, if not stopped, ultimately result in 

 an injury. But the company is not bound to 

 anticipate the intrusion of trespassers. 



When persons are employed by a railroad 

 corporation to perform the same or separate 

 duties all tending to the accomplishment of 

 one and the same general purpose and end 

 i. e., the maintenance and management of the 

 railroad one person so employed can not main- 

 tain an action against the company for an in- 

 jury received by him through the careless, neg- 



