Springer v. Pullman Co.
Citations
- 234 Pa. 172
- 83 A. 98
- 1912 Pa. LEXIS 629
Syllabus
<p>Negligence — Carriers—Sleeping car companies — Loss of personal effects retained in owner’s possession — Proximate cause — Evidence.</p> <p>1. Where baggage is entrusted for transportation to the exclusive possession of a carrier, the carrier becomes insurer against all loss except such as results from the act of God or the public enemy; but for the loss of personal effects which the passenger retains in his own possession, liability only attaches when the loss is shown to have resulted from the carrier’s negligence in failing to use reasonable care in the protection of the passenger’s property. This rule is applicable to sleeping car companies.</p> <p>2. In an action for damages against a sleeping car company for the loss of a valise which plaintiff retained in his possession while occupying a berth on defendant company’s car, it appeared that plaintiff on entering placed the satchel under his berth; that when he awakened next morning the satchel was missing; that when he retired the upper berth in his section was unoccupied; and that in the morning he learned from the porter that this berth had been occupied by a passenger who must have got aboard at an intermediate point after plaintifE had retired and who had evidently left the car at an Intermediate point while plaintiff was asleep. There was no evidence explaining how the satchel disappeared; and the only evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant’s servants was the testimony of another passenger to the effect that when he boarded the train, after plaintiff had retired, he gave his grip to the porter who was then on the platform, and that later on during the night he saw the porter in the wash room of the car. The length of time the porter was absent from his post did not appear; nor that when absent that his post was not filled by the conductor. No question was made as to the sufficiency of the rules and regulations of the company being sufficient to meet the requirements of ordinary
Judges: Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.