Goldstein v. Peoples Railway Co.

Citations

• 21 Del. 306
• 5 Penne. 306
• 60 A. 975
• 1905 Del. LEXIS 12

Syllabus

<p>Personal Injuries — Negligence — Railway Company—Infants— Trespassers—Contributory Negligence—Degree of Care Required Toward Infant Trespassers by Railway Company— Child Discovered on Platform of Car—Duty of Motorman—Inability of Company—Measure of Damages.</p> <p>1. The rule as to contributory negligence, as it affects the conduct of children is not the same as governs adults. It is the duty of the infant to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury, yet ordinary care for him is that degree of care which children of the same age, of ordinary care and prudence, are accustomed to exercise under like circumstances.</p> <p>2. A railway company is not required to anticipate the presence of a child on its cars who may not come on as passenger or by invitation, and if such child, while unobserved by the servants of the company because of their attention to their duties, voluntarily jumps off or falls while the car is in motion, and is thereby injured, without any negligence on the part of the company, the company is not liable. It is not an insurer of the safety of iniant trespassers, and is not required to use so high a degree of care for the protection of trespassers as would be required in the case of persons lawfully on its cars; or such care as would interfere with the usual and proper discharge of their duties by the servants of the company.</p> <p>3. If the motorman of a railway car sees a child of very tender years in a dangerous position upon the front platform of the car while it is in motion, and by an order or threat so frightens the child as to cause him to jump or fall from the car, and be thereby injured, the company would be liable.</p>