Silver v. New York Central Railroad
329 Mass. 14, 105 N.E.2d 923 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common carrier is only liable for injuries to an unusually susceptible passenger if the carrier's negligence would have posed a risk of harm to a person of ordinary health. If such a risk exists, the carrier is then liable for the full extent of the harm caused to the susceptible passenger, even if that harm was unforeseeable.
Facts:
- On January 14, 1948, Frances Silver, who suffered from Raynaud's disease, a circulatory ailment making her highly susceptible to cold, boarded a New York Central Railroad train.
- The following morning, her Pullman car was detached in Cleveland for a layover lasting nearly four hours.
- While waiting in the train yard, the car was allegedly left without heat for about three hours while the outside temperature was between 10 and 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
- Silver felt extremely cold and bundled up in her coat, furs, and gloves.
- She repeatedly rang for a porter but received no response, as she was alone in the detached car.
- As a result of the prolonged exposure to the cold, Silver's pre-existing condition was severely aggravated, causing impending gangrene in her fingers that required hospitalization.
- Silver's medical condition was not apparent or visible to a layperson.
Procedural Posture:
- Frances Silver sued the New York Central Railroad and The Pullman Company in a trial court.
- Upon her death from an unrelated cause, the administrator of her estate was substituted as the plaintiff.
- The parties stipulated that any judgment for the plaintiff would be against the railroad, with a corresponding judgment for The Pullman Company.
- At trial, the judge found for the plaintiff against the railroad.
- The defendant railroad appealed the judgment, citing as error the judge's denial of its requested rulings and the exclusion of certain evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a common carrier liable for harm to an unusually susceptible passenger only if its conduct would have foreseeably harmed a person of ordinary health, when the carrier had no knowledge of the passenger's condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
Yes. A common carrier's liability to a passenger with a particular, unknown sensitivity is measured by the standard of care owed to a person of ordinary health. The court held that the trial judge erred by refusing the defendant's requested instruction that it could only be liable if the train car became so cold as to endanger the health of a person of normal health. The governing principle is that unless a carrier has, or should have, specific knowledge of a passenger's delicate condition, it is not liable for failing to provide heat unless a person of ordinary good health would suffer harm. However, under the 'eggshell skull' rule, if the temperature was in fact low enough to harm an ordinary person, the railroad would then be liable for all the injuries the plaintiff sustained as a result, even the unforeseeable, aggravated harm caused by her pre-existing condition.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'eggshell skull' plaintiff rule to the duty of care owed by a common carrier. It establishes a critical threshold for liability: the defendant's conduct must first be negligent toward an ordinary person before liability attaches for the full extent of the harm to a particularly vulnerable plaintiff. This prevents common carriers from being held to a standard of virtual strict liability for every passenger's unknown, unique sensitivities. The decision solidifies the principle that the existence of a breach of duty is determined by foreseeability to an ordinary person, while the extent of damages is not limited by foreseeability once a breach is established.
