Jackson v. Natchez & W. Ry. Co.

Citations

• 114 La. 981
• 38 So. 701
• 70 L.R.A. 294
• 1905 La. LEXIS 580

Syllabus

<p>CARRIERS — INJURY TO PASSENGERS — RIGHTS OB EXCURSIONISTS — NEGLIGENCE — CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE — EMERGENCY TOOLS — PALL OP BRIDGE.</p> <p>1. Excursionists have the right to return home on the train by which they were taken out, and if, owing to the crowded condition of the train, they can secure no safer position than the platforms, it is not negligence on their part to ride thereon.</p> <p>2. The defense of contributory negligence is not inconsistent with the denial of negligence •on the part of defendant.</p> <p>3. The failure to equip a train with the tools usually carried by trains for emergency use in ■case of a wr'eek is negligence, and, where, for want of such tool, a passenger is not rescued as promptly as would otherwise have been practicable from his position in the débris of a wreck, the railroad company will be held responsible in damages for such additional sufferings, regardless of whether the wreck itself was or was not caused by its negligence.</p> <p>4. A railroad company will be held responsible for the injury to a passenger resulting from the collapse of one of its bridges, unless it can show that the bridge was as safe as the highest degree of practical care and skill could make a bridge of that class, and that, to the fullest extent that the highest degree of care and foresight could suggest, such bridge was inspected for discovering and remedying any defects that might have developed in it from the operation of the road or other causes, and, in case the defect was latent in the materials, then that the materials were thoroughly tested before being put in position.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>