Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Taylor

Citation199 So. 310,190 Miss. 69
Decision Date23 December 1940
Docket Number34308
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. Co. v. TAYLOR

APPEAL from circuit court of Lauderdale county, HON. ARTHUR G BUSBY, Judge.

Action by Leila H. Taylor against Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company for damages resulting from failure to perform promise of conductor of passenger train to send physician to passenger to treat passenger at her home. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals. Judgment reversed, with direction for entry of judgment for defendant.

Reversed, and judgment here for appellant.

Bozeman Cameron & Bozeman, and Cameron & Wills, all of Meridian, for appellant.

The railroad company is only charged with the duty of common humanity, and liable for failure therein, in such cases as these: (1) If it assumes charge of an injured person (though trespasser) as in Dyche v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Railroad Co., 79 Miss. 361, 30 So. 711, or in Y. & M. V. R R. Co. v. Leflar, 168 Miss. 255, 150 So. 220, who is helpless and himself unable to procure medical attention; (2) Or where it leaves a mail who was injured while in its care lying helpless and unconscious alongside the railroad track, as in R. R. Co. v. Byrd, 89 Miss. 308, 42 So. 286, where "for humanity's sake, there should have been something done for him, " to bring him to the aid and care of friends or doctors; (3) Or where, as in Hughes v. Gregory Bus Lines, 157 Miss. 374, 128 So. 96, a passenger is injured while in transit, alone and helpless and unattended and needs medical attention, which is available to the carrier at some intermediate stop before the passenger reaches his destination, or come into the care of his family or friends.

In all such cases, based on the duty of common humanity, and in this case, the helpless condition of the injured person, her inability to procure necessary medical attention without the aid of the railroad company, her absence from home and family and friends who could help and care for her is the catisa sine qua non of the case.

When the plaintiff reached Meridian, her destination, and immediately came into the care of her friends and family, who were in position to procure for her necessary medical attention with reasonable promptness, there was no longer any duty on the railroad company to provide for her medical attention for the sake of common humanity.

There was no failure on the part of the railroad company in the case at bar to carry the plaintiff to a place where she could receive proper treatment, and that with reasonable promptness.

R. R. Co. v. Byrd, 89 Miss. 308, 42 So. 286.

The promise by a conductor imposes no obligation upon the railroad company to do a thing which the railroad company was not already under obligation by law to do. Savier v. R. R. Co., 61 Miss. 8; Gage v. R. R. Co., 75 Miss. 17.

L. J. Broadway, of Meridian, for appellee.

In view of the helpless or practically helpless condition of the plaintiff, her poverty stricken circumstances, the presumable case with which the defendant could have had plaintiff attended and her suffering relieved, the conductor's knowledge and appreciation of the fact that her condition was one calling urgently for attention, his promise to get a doctor and subsequent failure to do so, can it be reasonably said that at the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict of no liability? The writer hereof says "No" and contends that this court has already said "No" in the case of Hughes v. Gregory Bus Lines, 157 Miss. 374, 128 So. 96, and other similar cases.

The appellee's conduct at most could amount to no more than contributory negligence, or a failure to exercise reasonable care to reduce her damages.

Y. & M. V. R. Co. v. Fields, 195 So. 489; Tri-State Transit Co. v. Martin, 181 Miss. 388, 179 So. 349.

In Dyche v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. R. Co., 79 Miss. 361, 30 So. 711, referred to and quoted from in appellant's brief, the railroad, which was not liable for the original injury to the deceased, but which had assumed charge of him, did exercise some care and attention toward the injured man, for it procured one of its doctors to attend to him and got him to a hospital, all at its own expense, yet the supreme court said that the jury should have been allowed to pass on the question of whether or not it had exercised toward him "common and ordinary humanity."

Railroads owe to their passengers the consideration and care of common humanity. It matters not how negligent a passenger may have been in producing the injury for which he sues, it does not absolve the railroad from the duty which it owes to him of proper attention after an accident shall have occurred, and if, when injured the railroad neglects this care, which common humanity would dictate, and by reason of this neglect, after the injury has occurred, a passenger suffers damage, he may recover against the railroad company for its dereliction.

Y. & M. V. R. Co. v. Byrd, 89 Miss. 308, 42 So. 286.

Appellant's counsel seem to contend that all the railroad has to do is bring the plaintiff to a place where she can receive medical treatment and that with reasonable promptness, evidently meaning thereby a town, city, or community where facilities for treatment are available. That this is not the meaning of the language of the court is clear by reference to the Dyche case, and to Hughes v. Gregory Bus Lines, 157 Miss. 374, 128 So. 96.

When a passenger becomes sick or is injured while en route, no matter how free the carrier may be of any blame in respect to the sickness or injury, the carrier owes to the passenger the consideration and care of common humanity, and if the carrier neglects that care which the enlightened sentiments of common humanity would dictate, and by reason of that neglect after the injury has occurred the passenger suffers damage, the carrier is liable. It is the duty of the carrier to see to it that the passenger is placed where he can receive proper treatment and with reasonable promptness and not leave him in a helpless condition lying on the floor suffering the tortures of an injury such as is shown in this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Wright
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 23 d1 Dezembro d1 1940
    ...... justice. In such cases as this, the temptation might be very. great to produce an inaccurate and misleading picture; and. there would be no ......
  • Korn v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 18 d5 Outubro d5 1963
    ...v. Robertson, 241 Miss. 796, 133 So.2d 543; Searcy v. Interurban Transportation Co., 189 La. 183, 179 So. 75; Alabama Great So. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 190 Miss. 69, 199 So. 310, 312. Where, as here, portions of the petition allege that the agents of the defendant carrier had knowledge of the in......
  • Continental Southern Lines, Inc. v. Robertson, 41972
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 16 d1 Outubro d1 1961
    ...et al., 193 Miss. 392, 9 So.2d 782; San Antonio Public Service Co. v. Wellman, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W. 582; Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. Taylor, 190 Miss. 69, 199 So. 310; Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. Alsup, 5 Cir., 101 F.2d 175; Jacob v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 6 Cir., 20......
  • Evans v. Hardin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 23 d1 Dezembro d1 1940

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT