New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Enches

• Citation: 17 A. 991,127 Pa. 316
• Decision Date: 28 June 1889
• Docket Number: 40
• Parties: NEW YORK ETC. R. CO. v. LAURA ENCHES
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

17 A. 991

127 Pa. 316

NEW YORK ETC. R. CO. v. LAURA ENCHES

No. 40

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

June 28, 1889

Argued May 9, 1889

ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WARREN COUNTY.

No. 40 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 40 December Term 1886, C.P.

On October 6, 1886, Laura Enches brought case against the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co., to recover damages for personal injuries charged to the negligence of the defendant company's employees. Issue.

At the trial on May 14, 1888, the case made, as was claimed, by the testimony on the part of the plaintiff, was as follows:

On August 21, 1886, the plaintiff with her mother took passage on a local train of the defendant company from Bear Lake, in Warren county, to Columbus, in the same county. When the train was approaching Columbus station, the call of the station was heard by the plaintiff, and she was also acquainted at the place. The plaintiff and her mother prepared to leave the train, and as soon as the train stopped they proceeded to alight, were hindered somewhat near the door by incoming passengers, but went out and down the steps of the car. The mother, being ahead, stepped off upon the platform safely, but when the plaintiff, following her, was on the last step of the car, the train was started with a sudden motion which threw the plaintiff across and upon the station platform, causing serious personal injuries. The stop of the train at the station was from half a minute to a minute.

The defendant introduced the testimony of a number of witnesses to the effect that the stop at the station was for the usual time at that station; that there were several passengers three or four at least, who had alighted, and the passengers waiting at the station had entered the cars, before the train started; that after the train began to move, the plaintiff and her mother came out on the forward platform of the ladies' car, the mother ahead and the plaintiff following close after, and the mother started down the steps; that the brakeman warned them not to try to get off, but to let him pass up and he would stop the train; that the ladies kept pressing their way down, and, finding they were about to jump, the brakeman assisted the mother to alight, and while he was so doing the plaintiff jumped and was thrown upon the platform.

The court, BROWN, P.J., after stating the facts, charged the jury:

The plaintiff bases her right to recover on the allegation of negligence on the part of the defendant, and the burden of proof is on her to sustain such allegation by the weight of evidence. If she has not done so she ought not to recover. If she has, then your verdict should be in her favor, unless it further appears that the plaintiff herself was also guilty of such negligence and want of care as essentially contributed to her injury. It is the law that, although the defendant may have been guilty of negligence and want of care in the management of its cars, yet if the jury are satisfied that the plaintiff was also negligent and careless, and with her negligence and carelessness contributed in any degree to the injury, she cannot recover.

The first question for you to answer, from the evidence, is, were the employees of the defendant company guilty of negligence in the starting of the train, on which the plaintiff was a passenger and from which she was making her exit at the time of the accident? It is the duty of a railroad company engaged in the business of the transportation of passengers to conduct them safely, and to make stops of a sufficient length of time to enable the passengers, using due diligence and proper care, to alight with safety. The claim on the part of the plaintiff is that the defendant was guilty of negligence in this, that the train was not stopped a sufficient length of time to enable the plaintiff, with ordinary care and with reasonable expedition, to alight safely.

The law does not prescribe how long a train of cars shall be stopped to enable passengers to depart. The length of time must depend upon the particular circumstances of the case of which the jury are to judge. What would be negligence under given circumstances, might not be under others. Passengers alighting from a train at a station where a large number get on and off, should, manifestly, be given more time than those alighting at a station where only a few passengers get on and off.

The rule that we lay down for your guidance, is, that if the train at the time of the accident to the plaintiff, taking into consideration the number of persons to alight at Columbus station, and the number on the platform to take passage, stopped a sufficient length of time to enable the plaintiff, using reasonable care and reasonable expedition, to leave with safety, then the defendant is not chargeable with carelessness, and the plaintiff should not recover.

On the other hand, if, taking all the circumstances into account, such sufficient length of time was not given, then the defendant was guilty of carelessness; and, if the plaintiff, without fault on her part, sustained injury as the consequence of such carelessness, she is entitled to a verdict.

If you find that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict, it will be your duty to ascertain what amount of damage in money will compensate her for such injuries and infirmities as the evidence shows is attributable to the want of care on the part of the employees of the railroad. . . .

The defendant requests the court to charge:

1. The plaintiff cannot recover unless the defendant was negligent in not stopping the train a sufficient length of time to enable her to get off safely, and the burden of proving such negligence is on the plaintiff.

Answer: Affirmed.

2. If the jury believe that the train was stopped a sufficient length of time to enable the plaintiff to get off, with a reasonable exercise of diligence on her part, there is no negligence to be attributed to the defendant, and the plaintiff is not enentitled to recover.

Answer: Affirmed.

3. If the plaintiff was hindered by incoming passengers until the train started, it was her duty to remain on the train, and any attempt to get off after the train was in motion was at her own risk and peril.

Answer: Affirmed.

4. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff undertook to get off the train after it began to move, she is guilty of contributory negligence and cannot recover.

Answer: This point, as a legal proposition, applicable to the evidence in the case on trial, is refused; but we refer it to you to find, from the evidence, and taking all the circumstances into consideration, whether the plaintiff, in attempting to get off the train, was guilty of such negligence or want of care, as contributed to the injuries complained of; if she was, she is not entitled to recover.

5. If the jury believe that the plaintiff attempted to get off after the train was in motion, in disregard of the warning of the brakeman not to, she was guilty of negligence and cannot recover.

Answer: This point is refused, as applicable to the evidence in the case on trial; but if you find that the plaintiff attempted to get off the train after it was in motion, and if, taking all the circumstances into account, you find that this attempt was such an act of negligence and imprudence on her part as contributed to her injury, then she cannot recover.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $7,750. A rule for a new trial having been discharged, the defendant took this writ, specifying that the court erred, inter alia:

1, 2. In the answers to defendant's points.

3. In its general charge to the jury, by giving undue prominence to the plaintiff's allegations of the negligence of the defendant, and by obscuring or overlooking the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed, and new venire awarded.

Mr. W. M. Lindsey (with him Mr. F. P. Ray and Mr. J. O. Parmlee), for the plaintiff in error:

The plaintiff's allegations of negligence on the part of the railroad company, are founded on two propositions, to wit: 1. That the train did not stop long enough for the plaintiff to alight. 2. That plaintiff was thrown from the car by an improper starting or jerk of the train. If the first proposition fails, they both fail and the plaintiff has no case.

1. If the train stopped a sufficient time for the plaintiff to alight, then it makes no difference how the train was started, or whether she was thrown off by the starting of the train or not. It was her duty to have been off the train, and if she was not, then she was guilty of negligence in being on the lower step of the car when the train started, and the second allegation cannot avail her: McClintock v Railroad Co., 21 W.N. 133. It is a fact that other passengers did get off, and if there was time for them there was time for the plaintiff. The getting on or off a moving...