Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Newmiller

• Decision Date: 17 April 1905
• Citation: 74 N.E. 410,215 Ill. 383
• Parties: CHICAGO UNION TRACTION CO. v. NEWMILLER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

215 Ill. 383

74 N.E. 410

CHICAGO UNION TRACTION CO.

v.NEWMILLER. ^*

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 17, 1905.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.

Action by Inga Newmiller against the Chicago Union Traction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, affirmed by the Appellate Court, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John A. Rose and Albert M. Cross (W. W. Gurley, of counsel), for appellant.

John F. Waters and C. H. Johnson, for appellee.

This is an action on the case, brought by Inga Newmiller against the Chicago Union Traction Company, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her while a passenger upon one of its cars. The original declaration alleges that on April 29, 1902, the defendant received the plaintiff on one of its east-bound electric Lake street cars as a passenger, and that, while she was in the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety, a fuse exploded, causing a loud report and a large amount of flame and smoke on said car, caused by the recklessness and negligence of the defendant, which explosion, flame, and smoke produced a panic among the passengers, by reason of which they made a rush for the rear door and platform, whereby the plaintiff was pushed and thrown from the car and was injured. An additional count alleged that while the plaintiff was a passenger on said car, and was exercising ordinary care for her own safety, an explosion occurred, caused by the negligence of the defendant, thereby causing a loud report and a large amount of flame and smoke in said car, which explosion, flame, and smoke produced a panic among the passengers, by reason of which they made a rush for the rear door and platform, whereby the plaintiff was pushed and thrown from the car and injured. The defendant filed a plea of not guilty, and the trial was by jury.

The accident on account of which this suit was brought occurred April 29, 1902, about 1 o'clock in the afternoon. The car in question was a Lake street electric car eastbound, and the accident occurred while the car was crossing Garfield Park. It was a long, closed car, with seats running lengthwise, and the plaintiff, a young woman about 25 years of age, sat at the extreme rear end on the left-hand side. There were 20 to 35 other passengers in the car. The controller was located on the front platform, close to the dashboard. While running at the rate of six or seven miles an hour there was a sudden flash and noise from the controller, and flames shot out of it to a height of five or six feet. The noise of the explosion was compared by one witness to the report of a shotgun, and by another to the explosion of a firecracker. The passengers rushed out of the car onto the rear platform, and the plaintiff, who was also endeavoring to get out, was pushed off and fell to the pavement. Her injuries consisted of two broken ribs and other injuries which confined her to her bed for about a month. She also claimed that the accident caused her a severe nervous shock, which has resulted in epileptic fits. Upon a hearing judgment was rendered in her favor for $4,500, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court, and a further appeal has been prosecuted to this court.WILKIN, J. (after stating the facts).

It is insisted by appellant, as grounds of reversal, that the evidence is wholly insufficient to support the verdict, that the declaration is insufficient, that there is a variance between the allegations of the declaration and the proof, that the doctrine of sudden peril was improperly applied in the trial of the case, and that the court erred in giving and refusing instructions.

As has been held in many cases, we have nothing to do with the controverted facts of the case, or whether the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence. The judgment of the Appellate Court is conclusive of these questions.

At the close of all the evidence there was a written motion by appellant to exclude the evidence from the jury, and to instruct the jury to find for the defendant, which was overruled by the court. On what particular grounds the motion was urged does not appear from the abstract, but in its consideration we are limited to the one question whether there was evidence fairly tending to support the verdict. It is not denied that appellant was rightfully a passenger on the defendant's car. As shown by the foregoing statement, she occupied a seat at the extreme rear on the left-hand side, and there can be no pretense that she was not in the exercise of due care for her own safety at the time of the explosion. While in this position the explosion occurred in the controller on the front end of the car. The controller was a part of the machinery used in operating the car, and it was in the possession and under the control of the appellant. It is clear that the explosion and flames caused a panic among the passengers, which resulted in the injury. All of these facts are clearly proven by the evidence. As to the explosion being the result of the negligence of appellant, while, as a general rule, negligence is not to be presumed, there are well-understood cases where the circumstances of the accident afford sufficient prima facie evidence of negligence. We think the case at bar falls fairly within the maxim res ipsa loquitur. Where an injury occurs to a person who is a passenger in the exercise of ordinary care, upon the car of a common carrier, by some defect in the machinery wholly under the control of the carrier, a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the carrier is established, and the burden of proof is upon it to show that the accident was without its fault. Hart v. Washington Park Club, 157 Ill. 9, 41 N. E. 620,29 L. R. A. 492, 48 Am. St. Rep. 298;Chicago City Railway Co. v. Rood, 163 Ill. 477, 45 N. E. 238,54 Am. St. Rep. 478;New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Blumenthal, 160 Ill. 40, 43 N. E. 809;Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217;Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Phillips, 49 Ill. 234;North Chicago Street Railway Co. v. Cotton, 140 Ill. 486, 29 N. E. 899;Galena &...