| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the 1892 case of Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company v. Harmon's Administrator, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when a man named Harmon was killed by one of the company's trains while crossing its tracks at an unauthorized location. His estate sued for damages, arguing that despite his trespassing, he had not been warned about oncoming trains due to negligence on part of the railway employees who were aware or should have been aware of his presence on their property but failed to signal him about approaching danger. The court held that although railroads owe a duty to avoid injuring trespassers once they are discovered, this does not extend to those who enter upon their premises without permission and place themselves in perilous situations without giving any notice or indication thereof. It further stated that it is unreasonable to expect companies' employees constantly watching out for such intruders especially if there is no reason for them being present at such locations. Therefore, since Mr.Harmon trespassed onto private property unannounced and put himself into harm’s way unknowingly; hence according to law as interpreted by justices during this case - he assumed all risks associated with his actions including death which unfortunately occurred here.
In the dissenting opinion for Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company v. Harmon's Administrator, Justice Brewer argued that the railroad company should not be held liable for Harmon's death. He contended that while it was unfortunate that Harmon died after being struck by a train, there was no evidence to suggest negligence on part of the railroad company. According to him, railroads are not insurers of safety but only required to exercise reasonable care and caution which he believed they did in this case. The fact that an accident occurred does not automatically imply negligence or liability on their part unless it can be proven otherwise. Therefore, he disagreed with majority’s decision holding the railway company responsible for damages resulting from Mr.Harmon’s untimely demise.