Story Case

The skilled freight handlers of the New York Eastern Railroad Company left its service on account of a disagreement about wages. The workmen had been receiving seventeen cents per hour, and now demanded twenty cents per hour, a wage which the company refused to pay. The company employed other men who were so unskilled that its service was practically of no use. For three weeks, it had refused to receive large quantities of goods for shipment. The state of New York now brings this action against the company to question its franchise right to continue as a railroad company, since it was not carrying out its public duty. Can such action be maintained 1

Ruling Court Case. Chester Hazen Vs. Fort Wayne And Chicago Railway Company, Volume 84 Illinois Reports, Page 36

On the tenth day of December, Hazen shipped a quantity of cheese from Chicago to New York over the line of the Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway Company, defendant herein. The cheese did not reach the consignee in New York until December 28, eighteen days after shipment. It was shown in evidence that such a shipment usually consumed ten days, and never over twelve; that from the tenth to the twenty-third the weather was mild; from the twenty-third to the twenty-eighth the weather was extremely cold, consequently the cheese was frozen, and great loss resulted, because of this unreasonable delay in transporting the cheese to New York. This was an action brought by Hazen against the railroad company.

As an excuse, the company proved that the sole cause of the delay was the obstruction of the passage of the trains, resulting from the irresistible violence of a large number of men, acting in combination with brakemen who had been previously in the employ of the company, and now on a strike. The company showed that the brakemen refused to work, and that other brakemen were secured, but that the moving of the trains was prevented by mobs and violence.

Mr. Justice Dickey said: "It is doubtless the law that railway companies cannot claim immunity from damages for injuries resulting in such misconduct from their employees, whether such misconduct be willful or merely negligent. If employees of a common carrier suddenly refuse to work, and the carrier cannot promptly supply their places with other employees, and injury results from the delay, the carrier is responsible; such delay results from the fault of the employees.

"For delay resulting solely from the lawless violence of men, not in the employment of the company, the company is not responsible, even though the men whose violence caused the delay had, but a short time before, been employed by the company." Since the delay and loss was caused, not by the company's employees, but by mobs and the violence of others, the company is not liable. Judgment was given for the Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway Company.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

It has been pointed out that a carrier is under a legal obligation to receive all goods tendered to it for shipment, provided reasonable regulations, which it has chosen to impose, have been complied with. Furthermore, a carrier is not excused from this duty, even though it may appear that its refusal to receive the goods was due to the fact that its employees refused to continue in the performance of their duties. The carrier is under a legal obligation to have men always ready to take care of its business, and in case it has not, it is liable for the damages flowing from its refusal to accept the goods. But if its liability to receive the goods for shipment, or to transport them, was due to the fact of mob violence of third persons, it is not liable for such consequences, even though the third person may have been in its employ previously.

The Story Case is based upon the facts in People vs. New York Central Railway Company, Volume 28 New York (Hun) Reports, Page 543, where the court said: "These facts reduce the question to this: Can railroad corporations refuse or neglect to perform their public duties upon a controversy with their employees over the cost and expense of doing them? "We think this question admits of but one answer. The excuse has, in law, no validity. The duties imposed must be discharged at whatever cost. They cannot be laid down, or suspended, without the legally expressed consent of the state. The trusts are active, potential, and imperative, and must be executed until lawfully surrendered, otherwise a public highway of great utility is closed or obstructed without any process recognized by law."