Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy
1880 U.S. LEXIS 2053, 102 U.S. 451, 26 L. Ed. 141 (1880)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common carrier cannot evade its duty to ensure the safe transportation of passengers by using cars owned and operated by a third-party company as part of its train; the third-party company's employees are considered the carrier's agents for safety purposes.
Facts:
- On June 5, 1876, Roy purchased a first-class railroad ticket from the Pennsylvania Company in Chicago for travel to Philadelphia.
- At the same time and place, Roy purchased a sleeping-car ticket from the Pullman Palace Car Company for the same route.
- Roy boarded a train operated by the Pennsylvania Company and immediately entered the section of the sleeping-car corresponding to his ticket.
- The next morning, while Roy was visiting a friend in another sleeping-car section on the same train, the upper berth fell.
- The sleeping-car porter re-secured the berth, stating it would not fall again.
- Shortly thereafter, the berth fell a second time, striking Roy on the head, causing injuries that incapacitated him.
- After the second fall, the brace or arm supporting the berth was found to be broken.
- The Pennsylvania Company's published time and distance cards advertised its line as equipped with 'Pullman palace sleeping-cars' and indicated that 'sleeping-car tickets' could be purchased at its Chicago office.
Procedural Posture:
- Roy commenced an action in the Supreme Court of Cook County, Illinois, against the Pennsylvania Company, the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne, and Chicago Railroad Company, and the Pullman Palace Car Company.
- Roy subsequently dismissed the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne, and Chicago Railroad Company and the Pullman Palace Car Company, proceeding only against the Pennsylvania Company.
- The case was removed for trial into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois rendered a judgment in favor of Roy for $10,000.
- The Pennsylvania Company filed a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a railroad company, operating as a common carrier, remain liable for injuries to its passengers caused by defects or negligence in a sleeping car owned and managed by a separate company but forming part of the railroad's train?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, a railroad company, operating as a common carrier, remains liable for injuries to its passengers caused by defects or negligence in a sleeping car owned and managed by a separate company but forming part of the railroad's train. The Court affirmed that common carriers are obligated to provide for passenger safety, exercising the utmost caution and extraordinary vigilance. This duty extends to all agencies and means employed in transportation, including cars or vehicles whose insufficiency results in injury to passengers, even if they belong to others. The law will not permit a railroad company to evade this duty through any device or arrangement with a sleeping-car company whose cars constitute part of its train; for the purpose of the transportation contract and safety obligations, the sleeping-car company's conductor and porter are considered servants and employees of the railroad company. Their negligence, or the negligence of the car's construction, is imputable to the railroad. The Court also held that while the admission of evidence concerning the plaintiff's financial condition was irrelevant, the trial court's emphatic instruction to the jury to disregard it cured the error. However, the admission of evidence regarding the number and ages of the plaintiff's children was not cured by instruction and was deemed prejudicial, warranting reversal.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the non-delegable duty of common carriers to ensure passenger safety, establishing that carriers cannot outsource or contract away their core safety responsibilities. It clarifies that a carrier is accountable for the fitness and safety of all components of its service, even those provided by third parties, emphasizing that public policy dictates the highest standard of care for those transporting individuals. This principle has far-reaching implications, influencing liability standards in modern transportation where complex networks often involve various service providers, such as airlines using third-party maintenance or charter services, or integrated public transport systems. It forces primary carriers to maintain rigorous oversight over all elements impacting passenger safety.
