Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 24, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 July 1882 — Sex and Contributory Negligence. [ARTICLE]

Sex and Contributory Negligence.

The Supreme Court of Michigan ganted a new trial in an action for damages against the Michigan Central Railroad Company, which, in the ground taken by plaintiff, presented a novel question. A young girl was killed by a train of cars of the defendant company, and tho plaintiff contended that contributory negligence could not be alleged l>y the company to invalidate the claim for damages, since the same degree of care was not required from a child as from an adult, and, furthermore, that the law did not expect or demand as much prudence in a woman as in a man. Tho jury gave a verdict to the plaintiff, allowing for tho youth and likewise for the sex of the victim. The court held that the instructions of the court below were correct, so far as concorns tho directions respecting > the age of tho doceased, but that it was an error to charge the jury that the sox of tlio plaintiff affected the rule as to reasonable care and prudence. The same care is expected on theimi±ggji ja woman as on that of a man. The court dwelt upon the fact that the difference in sex has much to do with the application of legal principles in many cases. Police regulations make distinctions. Words and conduct whioh in the presence of men would bo condemned in bad taste, may be punished as criminal when women are present. The law makes allowances for natural differences between men and women, and for the results of their varying modes of life and occupations. A decision in Michigan was quoted which declared, with obvious propriety, that the samo skill in driving a horse could not bo attributed to a woman as to a man, and that a person meeting a woman on the street when a collision was threatened should remember her possible deficiencies. While this is all true, the law nowhere has laid down the general principle that less care is required of a woman than of a man. Moreover, a greater degree of caution is expectod on a woman’s part, timidity and inexperience producing a care which is absent from the conduct of men. The court held that it, therefore, is uuphilosophical and unreasonable to establish a rule of law which necessitates less caution on the part of a woman. The Humanities of women are not to be gainsaid, and the deference and loniency which are due them must not be withheld. This decision of the Michigan court, however, excludes any excessive allowance for the errors of judgment and conduct, based on the element of sex, and shows that while women are less likely than men to expose themBelves to danger the faet of their being women is not to excuse negligence when the risk is assumed. If this decision is to stand for good law, as it probably will, the equality of tho sexes is established in an important particular. Women must be as careful as men when they are in physical danger. They may be on a different footing when standing at the ballot-box, but when crossing a track before an oncoming train, that equality, as shown by this decision, is indisputable. —Boston Advertiser.