Titus v. Bradford, B. & K. R. Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
136 Pa. 618, 20 A. 517 (1890)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Bradford, B. & K. R. Co. (Bradford) (defendant) was a railroad company that operated a narrow gauge railroad track. Bradford’s business was transporting over to its tracks the unloaded and loaded railroad cars belonging to other major carriers using standard gauge railroad tracks. To accomplish this, Bradford used a “hoist” to move the car bodies onto its own flat cars specifically designed for more narrow tracks. Most cars from other carriers had flat bottoms and thus sat securely on top of Bradford’s cars. However, some car bodies, called “Nypano” cars, had slightly rounded bottoms and thus did not sit securely. Bradford employees typically bolted these cars down or tied them down with telegraph wire. Titus’ (plaintiff) decedent worked on Bradford’s railroad for over two years and was very familiar with Nypano cars. On June 7, 1888, he was riding on top of one Nypano car while the train was moving. The cars appeared to be securely wired on. However, as the train rounded a sharp turn, the car on which Titus’ decedent was sitting began to sway and start to tip over. The decedent ran forward but was unable to jump to the next car in time. He fell to the tracks and was killed when the next car in line ran over him. Titus brought suit against Bradford on the ground that the company was negligent in transporting standard-size car bodies on narrow gauge tracks. The jury awarded Titus $5,325 in damages, and Bradford appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mitchell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.