Archer v. Ft. Wayne & E. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 July 1891 |
| Citation | 87 Mich. 101,49 N.W. 488 |
| Parties | ARCHER v. FT. WAYNE & E. RY. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; GEORGE GARTNER, Judge.
Action by Ross Archer against the Fort Wayne & Elmwood Railway Company for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Seth E. Engle, for appellant.
Edwin F. Conely, for appellee.
On the 25th day of December, 1888, between 8 and 9 o'clock in the evening, the complainant took passage upon one of the defendant's cars; but on account of the number of passengers in the car, and upon the rear platform was compelled to stand upon the front platform of the car from which he was thrown, and received very severe injuries, by his leg being run over and crushed by one of the car-wheels. The court took the case from the jury, and directed a verdict for the defendant. The declaration in the case alleges the duty of the defendant company, which plaintiff claims it violated, as follows: " First, to provide and furnish said plaintiff a safe and convenient seat or place to ride while being so conveyed as such passenger; second, to provide prudent, safe, and competent agents to manage said car, and provide for his safety as such passenger; third, not to drive said car at such a rate of speed as to be dangerous to said passengers and to the plaintiff as a passenger; fourth, to have a chain or guard across the passage-way down the steps at the end of the front platform extending across the passage-way, for the safety of passengers; fifth, to slacken the speed of the car and to stop when called upon to do so by the plaintiff at the time he slipped and fell from the car, while he was hanging to the guard-rail of the car." The neglect of duty alleged by the plaintiff in his declaration is as follows: "That the defendant wrongfully, negligently, and carelessly then furnished and provided imprudent and incompetent agents, to-wit: First, the driver and conductor then in charge of said car; second, defendant wrongfully and negligently failed to provide a safe and suitable seat or place for the plaintiff in and upon such car as such passenger, and negligently and carelessly allowed the car to be so filled and crowded as to prevent the plaintiff from passing inside the car, which in the exercise of due care he endeavored to do, and thereby wrongfully compelled him to stand and ride upon the front platform of said car; third, that while he was so lawfully standing and riding, and in the exercise of due care on his part, the defendant wrongfully and negligently had no chain or guard across the passage-way down the steps at the end of the front platform on the right hand of the car so moving eastward, but wrongfully and negligently allowed said chain or guard to be hanging there, not in use, and not hooked up as a guard and protection across the steps in its usual place where it was customary to keep the same; fourth, the driver and conductor wrongfully, recklessly, and carelessly mismanaged said car, and were then and there going at a high rate of speed when the driver wrongfully and carelessly, without any notice or warning to the complainant, struck the horses a blow with his whip, causing them to jump forward, giving the car a sudden jerk, and a pitching, rocking motion, and still further increasing its speed to a high and dangerous rate, just as it was passing the crosswalk on Riopelle street, thereby then and there throwing the complainant from the platform at the right-hand thereof, causing him to slip from the step, and to swing around to his right towards the car, while trying to save himself by clinging with his right hand to the hand-rail of the car, the swift motion of the car dragging him backwards, while struggling to recover himself, and while calling, as he then did, to the driver to stop or slacken the speed of the car, and causing him to fall upon his back with his leg across the rail of the track, so that the car-wheel ran over it, and crushed the ankle-joint and bones of the leg below the knee, and cut, crushed, and bruised the flesh of his leg." The declaration having set out the duty of the defendant, and its neglect to observe such duty, then states that "by reason of the wrongful and negligent acts of the defendant aforesaid, the complainant was seriously hurt," etc.; and concludes, "whereby, and by reason of the premises aforesaid, the plaintiff has sustained damages," etc.
The testimony introduced upon the trial showed that the complainant and his father took passage upon the car on the night...
To continue reading
Request your trial