Imelda Hernandez

1

Imelda Hernandez

Professor Whitney

Econ Senior Seminar

November 13, 2012

Mock Trial # 3

Tort Rights: Team 1 (Plaintiff)

Strauss (P) v. Huntington Park Railway Co. (D) (1957)

On Sunday August 24th, forty-three year old Helen Strauss had plans tovisit Huntington Beach along with her two daughters, Elizabeth and Lillian. In order to arrive to their designated location, Helen and her daughters utilized the Huntington Park Railway Co., as a mode of transportation. Upon arriving to the East Los Angeles platform, Helen and Elizabeth stood at a corner of the platform alongside a cigarette vending machine; meanwhile Lillian went off to buy a newspaper. As a train was pulling out of the platform, a bundle exploded with contents of gunpowder. The explosion originated from activity involving the platform attendant carelessly pushing and jolting an Italian as he boarded the moving train. In doing so, hisbundle slips from his hands and landsin between the moving train and the platform. The friction from the moving train caused the bundle to explode. The explosion created afireworks scene of smoke, balls of fire and damaged nearby objects such as the shattering of the vending machine’s glass. Due to the negligence of Huntington Park Railway Co. in properly treating its clients, the bundle exploded causing Helen physical injury. As a result she brings upon this lawsuit seeking $50,000 in damages for surgical, medical, and nursing treatments along with her physical inability of keeping her job.

Onbehalf of the plaintiff, I request the court to grant damages of a collective sum of

$50,000. Precedents similarly structured to this case, stand in favor of the defendant for the reason that one can only have so much control of people’s actions. However, in this case the damage is attributed to negligence from Huntington Park Railway Co.,in performing theirdutiesofmaintaining the train platforms under control and safe. Damages could have been avoided had the company provided enough employees at the East Los Angeles platform and if the attendants had acted with greater concern for the public’s safety. Hence, damages should be granted to the plaintiff for negligence from the defendant, particularly when taking into consideration the “but for” test and the “last clear chance.” Utilizing this case as a precedent for future cases can be of assistance to avoid reckless behavior that can result in injuries as severely as the ones the plaintiff experienced.

From the case transcript it is known that the platform attendant, employee of the defendant Huntington Park Railway Co., pushed and jolted the Italian man trying to board the moving train. Out of the platform attendant’s reckless behavior, the Italian man lost grip of his bundle and caused the explosion that resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries. If the platform attendant had carefully performed his duties of providing safety and regulation in the platform, then the explosion could have been avoided. Pushing and shoving a passenger into a moving train is in no way safe. Although the defendant can statethat the attendant was trying to assist the Italian man from missing his train, by shoving him into an already overcrowded train only created a dangerous environment for the surrounding passengers. Even though the platform attendant was who behaved in a reckless matter, Huntington Park Railway Co., should be held liable because their employees are a reflection of them. Looking back to the case ofPloof v. Putnam (1908), the servant unmooring the sloop from the defendant’s dock was an act “within the scope of his employment.” Although the servant was who physically caused the plaintiff harm, he only did so based on his employment role. Similarly in the case at hand, the platform attendant acted on behalf his employment with Huntington Park Railway Co., thus the defendant should be held liable for the employee’s actions such as in Ploof v. Putnam. Additionally, even though there was negligence on part of the Italian man, the defendant is still liable for all of the damages. Although the Italian was unidentified, according to Kingston v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. it is noted that if only one source of injury can be determined amongst several involved, then that source is held responsible for all damages. If we take into consideration this ruling for the case at hand, then the defendant would be held liable for all damages.

Besides the defendant’s reckless behavior, Huntington Park Railway Co. is also negligent due to the fact that they failed to provide an adequate amount of employees at the station. During the time of the incident it was noted that a large number of customers was typical at the East Los Angeles platform. From this viewpoint, expecting a large crowd of customers was “constructive knowledge” for the railroad company. Being the case, the defendant should have acted accordingly by proving the platform with enough employees to be able to control the crowd of passengers. If the railroad company had provided the platform with more employees, there would have been more regulation and organization in controlling the crowd. For instance, the departing train would have not been overcrowded and the Italian man would have not been allowed to aboard the moving train. It is the defendant’s duty to enforce proper rules and regulations at train platforms in order to secure the safety of the public, in where shoving passengers is unnecessary.For this reason, the defendant should be held liable for failing to take cost-justified precautions. Providing sufficient regulation and surveillance would have avoided the bundle from exploding and prevented the injuries the plaintiff faces today.

Besides the above arguments, it can be proven that the defendant is negligent based on

the “but for” test and “the last chance.” The “but for” test states, without action A is it reasonable that B could still occur, if not then A is a cause. In this case, if the platform attendant had not pushed and shoved the Italian, then the bundle would have not exploded and caused no harm to the plaintiff. As in Central of Georgia Railway Co., v. Price (1898), the plaintiff would have not been burned by the lamp had the defendant, Central of Georgia Railway Co., not had delayed her trip to Winchester, Georgia. Although in this case the plaintiff did not receive damages, her injury could have been prevented had the defendant taken her directly to her destination. The “last chance” doctrine states that the defendant fails to exercise ordinary care in a last clear chance to avoid an accident. The platform attendant had the last chance to prevent the explosion from occurring if only he had not pushed and shoved the Italian man on to the moving train. In Davies v. Mann (1842), the defendant had the last chance in avoiding the donkey’s death. Since the defendant was driving the wagon down the highway, he should have taken precautions and avoided hitting the donkey since he had the last chance in preventing the incident. Through the “but test” and “last chance” we can see how the defendant is negligent for their actions as a result of being the source of the incident.

From the reasons above we show how the defendant is negligent for being the source of the plaintiff’s injury, yet the defendant might state that they have a limited control over people’s actions. The Huntington Park Railroad Co. was unable to see the foreseeable risk of harm. They had no prior knowledge that the Italian man would be carrying a bundle that carried the risk of a potential explosion. In the other hand, had the platform attendant conducted his duties in a careful manner, the risk of an injury of this matter could have been reduced. As stated earlier, had the railroad company provided more security and regulation, the plaintiff’s injuries could have then been prevented. As a result of the defendant’s negligence in doing so, we hold them

liable for damages.

The defendant’s reckless behavior created a harmfulenvironment for the passengers. If ruling in favor of the defendant, it will demonstrate the lack of accountability for one’s careless behavior and will result in more injuries such as the one at hand. We would also be reducing the incentive for ordinary care as shown in Berns v. Doan. In this case, Doan acted without ordinary care, which resulted in the vehicle collision with Berns. The judge ruled against the defendant for the absence of a duty of ordinary care. If ruling in favor of the plaintiff, this will help demonstrate those whom act recklessly and without ordinary care will face consequences. According to the negligence rule, the harm must be foreseeable through cost-justified anticipation of harm and avoidable through cost-justified precautions. Huntington Park Railroad Co., had knowledge that the East Los Angeles platform experienced a large crowd of passengers during the time frame of the incident. At the time of the explosion, the plaintiff had also tried to shield herself in order to prevent further harm. The plaintiff by no means acted negligently; therefore all the liability falls on the defendant.