RAILROAD WHISTLING.
Mr. Briscoe's bill [S. 2] to amend the. railroad whistling act approved March 29, 1879, being read the second time.
Mr. CHAPMAN--As near as he could gather from the reading the second section, was incomprehensible. He moved to strike out certain words. Common law makes what he proposes to strike out the law already, except a qualification which should be inserted. There is no occasion for adding the words referred to. With the words stricken out the law would stand just responsible and fair, and would make Railroad Companies responsible for injury, unless resulting from the negligence or carelessness of the person injured. it has been thoroughly well construed that Railroad Companies are liable for whatever injury is occasioned by neglect to whistle on approaching crossing of a public highway.
Mr. BROWN did not think the amendment either changes or modifies the bill. The law is: "Where one person receives injury from the negligence or carelessness of another, he is subject to damage." The amendment may remove doubt and uncertainty, and therefore it might be well to adopt it.
Mr. FOSTER stated that the bill supplies an amission in the act. Instead of saying the engineer shall sound the whistle before coming to a crossing, the act reads that he shall sound the whistle continuously. Now, the Senator from Marion (Mr. Chapman) proposes to amend the second section very properly.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LANGDON moved to amend so as to have all pending suits determined according to the last named act.
Mr. CHAPMAN--Out of fair justice to itself, the Legislature can not afford to pass this amendment, as the statute supposed to be passed provided not for a continuous blast of the whistle. There is no special propriety in saving from suits for violation of a statute that never was intended to be enacted.
Mr. LANGDON doubted the propriety of amending the act except to make it speak as the General Assembly intended. But as now amended there is added a liability for injury attached. If the party injured contributed by his own negligence to such injury he could not be awarded damages. The tendency of the bill is to promote diligence. The original amendment ought not to pass, but if passed this reservation should be added, to procure remedies for any wrong committed.
Mr. BELL said the statute, instead of tending to preserve life and limb, destroyed the efficiency of sounding the whistle as a means of alarm. Then it was bringing on deafness of engineers. Better repeal the statute and leave the common law to govern, which furnishes a complete remedy. We say the first section is wrong, and yet propose to keep alive a penalty for its violation.
Mr. URMSTON thought the first section, as amended, was all right, but as to Section 2, the first suggestion made by the Senator from Marion (Mr, Chapman) was a good one. There is no clause to enforce the provision of one of the sections. There is one clause which runs counter to common law by providing that the Company as well as an engineer shall be liable for injury to an employe.
On motion by Mr. SPANN, the bill and amendments were referred to the Committee on Railroads.
