Silver v. New York Central Railroad Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Evidence

Evidencecommon carrierpassenger comfortordinary careordinary good healtheggshell plaintiff limitationheating of carsnegative evidence

Facts

The plaintiff was traveling from Boston to Cincinnati in a Pullman car operated as part of the defendant railroad's train. At Cleveland, the car was detached and stood in the yard for nearly four hours while awaiting a later connection, and there was evidence that for about three hours the car had no heat while the outside temperature was about 10 to 15 degrees and the car temperature was below freezing. The plaintiff had Raynaud's disease, a circulatory ailment that could be triggered by even slight drops in temperature, and after the Cleveland exposure her hands became seriously affected and required hospitalization. A lay observer could not have detected that she had the disease.

Issue

Whether the railroad could be held liable for failing to heat the car based on injury to this unusually susceptible passenger without proof that the cold would have endangered a person of ordinary good health, and whether evidence that other passengers made no complaints about the temperature was admissible. The case also concerned whether evidence from other cars about temperature or comfort was properly excluded.

Rule

A common carrier must exercise ordinary care to furnish heat necessary for the health, comfort, and safety of passengers, but, except possibly where it has or reasonably should have particular knowledge of a passenger's delicate condition, it is not liable for failure to heat a car unless the cold is such that a person of ordinary good health would suffer harm. If that threshold is met, a susceptible plaintiff may recover for all resulting injury. Negative evidence that other passengers made no complaints may be admitted when substantially identical exposure conditions are shown and the foundation establishes that the silence is meaningful, including that the witness was available to receive such complaints and complaints were unlikely to have been made elsewhere.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

On a winter night, a coach operated by Lakefront Rail Lines sat on a siding outside Toledo for nearly two hours after a mechanical delay. Evidence at trial showed the heat was off, the interior temperature fell to about 20 degrees, and passenger Mara Levin, who had an undisclosed autoimmune condition making her unusually sensitive to cold, suffered severe hand injuries.

If Lakefront Rail Lines had no reason to know of Mara's condition, which is the best statement of the carrier's liability?

Explanation. A common carrier must use ordinary care to provide heat necessary for passengers' health, comfort, and safety. But absent particular knowledge, or reason to know, of a passenger's delicate condition, the carrier is not liable for inadequate heat unless the cold would harm a person of ordinary good health. Once that threshold is met, a susceptible passenger may recover for the full injury actually caused.