Goldey v. Pennsylvania Railroad

30 Pa. 242
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 1, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 Pa. 242 (Goldey v. Pennsylvania Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goldey v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 30 Pa. 242 (Pa. 1858).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Lowrie, C. J.

— We are under no necessity of deciding whether or not a railroad company, in the exclusive enjoyment of a public franchise of highway, can make any contract limiting its common law liability as.common carriers; for this cause is governed by other principles, which, without any repetition of the facts, we may state in a few propositions.

1. A contract limiting their liability as carriers, does not relieve them from ordinary care in the performance of their duty; and the most that it can do is to relieve them from those conclusive presumptions of negligence which arise when the accident is not inevitable, even by the highest care, and to require that, negligence be actually proved against them.

2. They cannot excuse themselves, as for an inevitable accident, by showing that the cars were thrown off the track by accidentally running over a man; if it also appear that the man was a drover, attending to cattle on the train, and fell off because no proper place was provided for such attendants, and he was compelled to stand on the bumpers. Even if he fell by his own carelessness, this does not excuse them for putting him in a position where his carelessness produces such serious consequences to others.

3. It follows, from these principles, that the parol evidence admitted in explanation of the written contract, did no harm to the defendants, because it proved only the legal effect of the contract ; and for the same reason the agent’s authority to make the explanations was immaterial.

We do not discover that there was any error in the trial of which the defendants can complain.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Crary v. Lehigh Valley Railroad
53 A. 363 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Burnett v. Pennsylvania Railroad
34 A. 972 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1896)
Willock v. Pennsylvania R. R.
30 A. 948 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 Pa. 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldey-v-pennsylvania-railroad-pa-1858.