Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 03 June 1913
• Citation: 62 So. 813,183 Ala. 265
• Parties: ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. ROBINSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

62 So. 813

183 Ala. 265

ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. ROBINSON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 3, 1913

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; William M. Walker, Judge.

Transferred from Court of Appeals, under Act 1911, p. 450, § 6.

Action by Mrs. Laura B. Robinson against the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company for damage for injury to her while a passenger. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Mayfield Sayre, and Somerville, JJ., dissenting in part.

The following is count 1: "Plaintiff claims of defendant $5,000 as damages for that heretofore, to wit, on the 4th day of July, 1911, defendant was a common carrier of passengers for hire and reward by means of a train upon a railway from a point in Alabama, to wit, York, to another point in said state, to wit, Attalla; that on said day, while plaintiff was being carried by the defendant as its passenger on said train for hire and reward, accompanied by her three small children and while plaintiff was defendant's passenger on said train, and said train was at a point on said railway between said York and said Attalla, in said Alabama, plaintiff, with one of her said children, to wit, a child two years of age went into the toilet provided by defendant on the car in said train, on which car defendant was carrying plaintiff and said child as its passengers; that while plaintiff and said child were in said toilet the door or place of exit from said toilet became so fastened or obstructed as that plaintiff and said child were unable to leave said toilet for a long time to wit, for several hours, and as a proximate consequence thereof plaintiff, who was far advanced in pregnancy, was made sore and sick, her health and physical stamina were greatly impaired, she suffered great mental and physical pain and anguish, was confined for a long time in a close and hot and small apartment, and was made very uncomfortable, and was greatly annoyed, chagrined, the attention of many people was called to the fact that she was confined in said toilet, and she suffered great inconvenience and annoyance, and mental and physical pain and anguish, and she was compelled to be separated from two of her small children for a long time. Plaintiff avers that defendant was guilty of negligence in or about carrying plaintiff as its passenger on the occasion aforesaid, and that as a proximate consequence of said negligence of defendant plaintiff was confined in said toilet for a great portion of said time on the occasion aforesaid, and was caused to suffer said injuries and damage."

Charges 1 and 2 refused to defendant were the general affirmative charge and the affirmative charge as to count 1.

"(16) The court charges, you, gentlemen of the jury, that if, after hearing all the evidence in the case, your mind should be in a state of doubt or confusion as to whether or not plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, then your verdict should be for the defendant."

A.G. & E.D. Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Harsh, Beddow & Fitts, of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON J.

Count 1 of the complaint sufficiently charges the breach of duty owing the plaintiff as a passenger resulting from a negligent failure to safely carry her as a passenger as it had contracted to do. If she was imprisoned in the toilet provided for passengers on account of a defect in the lock or fastenings of the door so that she could not open said door, and she thereby suffered pain or discomfort, her injuries would as much result from a failure to safely transport her as a passenger as if she received physical hurt or suffered pain through any other source which constituted a breach of duty on the part of the defendant growing out of the relationship, and which said relationship called for the exercise, by the defendant, of the highest degree of care, skill, and diligence known to persons engaged in such business. The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's demurrer to count 1 of the complaint.

Whether or not proof of the confinement alone would be sufficient to require the defendant to exonerate itself of negligence we need not decide, as the plaintiff not only proved her confinement in the toilet, but proved other facts from which the jury could infer that the defendant was guilty of negligence in failing to have the fastenings to the door in a safe and proper condition. She said that she made every effort to unfasten the door, and there was other evidence, growing out of the conduct of the trainmen in getting the same open, to create inferences for the jury that the lock or latch was defective, and that her failure to open same was not due to her mere ignorance as to how to manipulate the fastenings. The plaintiff says that the porter prized off the lock, while he admitted that he prized the receiver after getting to the toilet through the window. If the lock was in good working order and could have been opened in the ordinary way, it was a little singular that the porter prized either the lock or the receiver, and the fact that he resorted to force instead of the usual way to unfasten the door was not only a circumstance tending to show that the fastening was defective, but that the porter knew of same, else he would have attempted to open it in the ordinary way before prizing either the lock or receiver. The trial court did not err in refusing charges 1 and 2, requested by the defendant.

Charge 9, refused the defendant, was fully covered by given charges 10, 15, and "A."

Charge 16, refused the defendant, was bad. It instructs for the defendant if the mind of the jury "be in a state of doubt or confusion as to whether or...