Railroad Co. v. Gladmon

82 U.S. 401, 21 L. Ed. 114, 15 Wall. 401, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1268

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: January 20, 1873
• Status: Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice HUNT

delivered the opinion of the court.

Sufficient proof was given to establish the negligence of the driver of the ear, and no point is raised on that bi’aiich of the case.

The alleged errors arise from refusals to give certain instructions upon the effect of the conduct of the child, and of the charge as actually made on that subject. The-first prayer for instructions is stated in the record in the words following:

“ If the jury find from the evidence that the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from his attempting to cross a street in front of an approaching car, driven by an agent of defendants, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff' to show affirmatively, not only the want of ordinary care and caution on the part of the driver, but the exercise of due care and caution on his own part; and if the jury find from the evidence that the negligence or want of due cafe or caution of the plaintiff caused the accident, or even contributed to it, or that it could have been avoided by the exercise of due care on his own part, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, whether the driver of the car was guilty of negligence or not, but the jury must find for defendant.”

As applied to adult parties, the first branch of this proposition is not correct. While it is true that the absence of reasonable care and caution, on the part of one seeking to recover for an injury so received, will prevent a recovery, it is not correct to say that it is incumbent upon him to prove such care and caution. The want of such care or contributory negligence, as it is termed, is a defence to be proved by the other side.

The plaintiff may establish the negligence of the defend aut, his own injury in consequence thereof, and his case is made out. If there are circumstances which convict him of concurring negligence, the defendant must prove them, and thus defeat the action. Irrespective of statute law on the subject, the burden of proof on that point does not rest upon the plaintiff. * In the case of Oldfield v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company, † Denio, J., says:

“ I am of opinion that it is not a rule of law of universal application that the plaintiff must prove affirmatively that his own conduct, on the occasion of the injury, was cautious and prudent. The oints probandi, in this as in most other cases, depends upon the position of the affair as it stands upon the undisputed facts. Thus, if a carriage be driven furiously through a crowded thoroughfare, and a person.is run over, he would not be obliged to prove that he was cautious and attentive, and he might recover, though there were no witnesses of his actual conduct. The natural instinct of self-preservation would stand in the place of positive evidence, and the dangerous tendency of the defendant’s conduct would create so strong a probability that the injury happened through his fault that no other evidence would be required. . . . The culpability of the defendant must be affirmatively proved before the case can go to the jury, but the absence of any fault on the part of the plaintiff may be inferred from circumstances; and the disposition of men to take care of themselves and keep out of difficulty may properly be taken into consideration.”

The later cases in the New York Court of Appeals I think will show that the trials have almost uniformly proceeded upon the theory that the plaintiff is not bound to prove affirmatively that he was himself free from negligence, and this theory has been accepted as the true one. Generally, as here, the proof which shows the defendant’s negligence, shows also the negligence or the caution of the plaintiff. The question of the burden of proof is, therefore, not usually presented with prominence. In some of the States it has been held that the plaintiff was bound to make affirmative proof of his freedom from negligence. In many cases it is so held by virtue of local statutes. *

There is, however, another and very satisfactory reason for the refusal to comply with the prayer. The rule of law iu regard 'to the negligence of an adult, and the rule in regard to that of an infant of tender years is quite different. By the adult there must be given' that care and attention for his own protection that is ordinarily exercised by persons of intelligence and discretion. If he fails to give it, his injury is the result of his own folly, and cannot be visited upon another. Of an infant of tender years less discretion is required, and the degree depends upon his age and knowledge. Of a child of three years of age less caution would be required than of one of seven, and of a child of seven less than of one of twelve or fifteen. The caution required is according to the maturity and capacity of the child, and this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of that case. †

The rule laid down in the request under consideration entirely ignores this difference. Assuming that it would have been a sound rule if the plaintiff had been an adult, it is evident that the jury would not have been justified in applying it in this case. That “due care and caution” required of plaintiffs generally, was uot required of the plaintiff here. If it had been given as requested, the instruction would have been quite certain to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the plaintiff. It was properly refused.

The instruction asked for in the second prayer, and which the judge refused to give, was as follows:

“ 2. If the jury find that the plaintiff negligently or rashly attempted to cross the street in front of the ear, but his injuries resulted from his having accidentally slipped and fallen on or near the track when endeavoring to turn back when it was too late to stop the car, it is to be regarded as an inevitable accident, for the consequences of which the defendant is not responsible.”

The suggestions already made are applicable to this request. The circumstance that the plaintiff'ivas au infant of tender years, and that a different rule was required in that case from the rule in the case of an adult, was excluded from the proposition. A charge in accordance with the prayer could not, therefore, have been properly made. The prayer also assumed as existing, facts of which no proof is found in the record. I do not find any evidence of the fact here assumed, that when the plaintiff slipped or fell, it was too late to stop the car. The evidence on that subject comes from the witness who testified in substance that if the driver had been attending to his duty he could have checked his horses in time. This witness gave the only evidence on the point. It is not allowable to assume.as existing, facts not proved, and to ask a direction to the jury upon such assumption. This practice would tend to embarrass and mislead the jury.

The third and fourth prayers are of the same general character and do not require more particular consideration.

Exception is also taken to certain portions of the charge. The general scope and tendency of the charge is correct. The rule in regard to the liability of the defendant under the circumstances submitted to the jury is correctly given. The language is less simple, perhaps, than might have been desired, and detached sentences might be open to criticism, but upon the whole it is right, and the jury could not have failed to understand it correctly.

Some discussion was had upon the argument on the point of the degree of care and attention to be required of those having the charge and custody of au infant of tender years. This presents an interesting question, which, when it is properly before us, will receive the careful attention of the court. In the present case it does not appear to have been presented to the court below, and there is nothing in the evidence to justify this court in now considering it. Upon the case, as it conies before us, the judgment must be

Affirmed.

* Oldfield v. New York and Harlem Railroad Co., 3 E. D. Smith, 103; affirmed 14 New York, 310; Johnson v. Hudson River Railroad Co., 20 New York, 65; Button v. Same, 18 Id. 248; Wilds v. Same, 24 New York, 430.

† 3 E. D. Smith, 103.

* Sherman & Redfield on Negligence, 43 and 44, and note where the cases are collected.

† Sherman & Redfield on Negligence, § 49; Mangam v. Brooklyn City Railroad, 38 New York, 455; O’Mara v. Hudson River Railroad Co., 88 New York, 445; Smith v. O’Connor, 48 Pennsylvania State, 218; Pennsylvania Railroad v. McTighe, 16 Id. 316.