Case XL: A Railway Disaster Caused by Mischief

Audax, a mischievous farm hand, amused himself late one evening by misplacing railroad switches. His intention was to get the switchman angry. After a while along comes a train, runs into the wrong track and demolishes some cars standing there. The switchman escapes punishment of dismissal solely because of his previous good record, but he is sentenced to pay damages of one hundred dollars. After a time Audax goes to confession and asks whether he is obliged to make good the $100. The confessor absolves him from so doing in consideration of the fact that neither switchman nor station master had fulfilled their duty of inspection. Did the confessor decide rightly?

Answer. The confessor’s decision is not correct in all points.

1. The reasoning by which he denies the obligation of restitution is erroneous. Supposing the switchman had neglected his duty of inspection (whether such was really the case can only be ascertained from the interval of time between Audax’s mischievous deed and the train’s arrival) he is the negative cause of the damage, answerable to the railroad company for it, because it was a neglect of his official duty and he has to bear the consequences. But Audax at all events is the cause of the harm done, and at that the positive cause, and the positive doer of damage is bound to make restitution before the negative doer, if otherwise the conditions which require restitution prevail (LEHMKUHL, Theol. No. I, n. 1016; S. ALPH. lib. 3, n. 573).

2. If Audax would become known, and be accused, as the perpetrator, there is no doubt but that he would be sentenced to pay damages and these would also bind in conscience. For this there is necessary, besides causing the damage, only the legal guilt and this is undoubtedly present (LEHMKUHL, Theol. Mor. I, n. 965). 3. If the matter is merely to be decided in the interior forum, it must be ascertained that there was culpa gravis theologica, not only against justice graviter culpabilis, but to an extent also the anticipation of ensuing damage. Of itself Audax’s deed is a grievously sinful act; it might well have happened that the displacing of the switches had resulted not only in the demolishing of two cars, but in a much more serious accident, perhaps with loss of human life. It would be therefore proper to ask Audax if he had not thought of the possibility of such a calamity. If admitting he had such thought, he would have to be held to make restitution, even if he had carelessly persuaded himself that just then a disaster would hardly occur. Should he earnestly assert that he had not thought of the possibility of a calamity, and that he expected the switchman would immediately come around, and, furious about the displaced switches, set them in order—a possible train of thought for an easy going boy—he could not then be held in conscience to make restitution. There might be a culpa gravis against charity in exasperating one’s neighbor so maliciously (this is not examined here), but there is here no gravis culpa with regard to causing serious damage. That in this case the switchman had to bear the damage is unfortunate, but not unjust. Aug. Lehmkuhl, S.J.