Beath v. Rapid R. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 March 1899
• Citation: 78 N.W. 537,119 Mich. 512
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BEATH v. RAPID RY. CO.

78 N.W. 537

119 Mich. 512

BEATH v. RAPID RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 14, 1899

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Willard M. Lillibridge Judge.

Action by Rebecca C. Beath against the Rapid Railway Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Manifestations and declarations of present pain may be proved, in an action for personal injuries, to show plaintiff's condition though they were made long after the accident.

The declaration is as follows, omitting formal parts, viz.:

"Rebecca C. Beath, plaintiff herein, by Fred H. Warren, her attorney, comes into court, according to the form of the statute authorizing the commencement of suit by declaration, and complains of the Rapid Railway Company, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Michigan, of a plea of trespass on the case, for that whereas, heretofore, to wit, on the 17th day of October, A. D. 1895, and for some time prior thereto, said defendant was a body corporate, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Michigan, and was then and there engaged in the business of maintaining and operating a certain line of railway extending along the Gratiot road, so called, from the city of Detroit, in the county of Wayne, to the city of Mt. Clemens, in the county of Macomb, upon which line of railway it operated and propelled cars by means of electricity, and was upon, to wit, the 17th day of October, A. D. 1895, and ever since has been, and now is, engaged in the business of carrying goods and passengers for hire, as a common carrier, on the line of its said railway so maintained and operated in the counties aforesaid.

"And plaintiff further alleges that on, to wit, the 17th day of October, A. D. 1895, she was a passenger upon defendant's said railway, in a car belonging to and operated by said defendant, running on the Gratiot road, so called, to and towards the city of Detroit; and she then and there paid or caused to be paid to said defendant the full fare demanded by it for passage in said car over its said line of railway, to wit, from the said city of Mt. Clemens to the said city of Detroit. And thereupon it became and was the duty of the defendant safely then and there to carry and convey the said plaintiff from the said city of Mt. Clemens to the city of Detroit, aforesaid, and to exercise great care in directing, propelling, operating, and maintaining the said car in which plaintiff was a passenger so that said car would pass safely over its said line of railway, to wit, from the city of Mt. Clemens to the city of Detroit aforesaid, and to so direct, manage, control, maintain, and operate its said line of railway that the cars running thereon, to wit, on the Gratiot road, so called, between said above-mentioned cities, would not be brought into collision with each other while running back and forth over and along said line of railway aforesaid; and it also became and was the duty of said defendant to employ careful, competent, skillful, prudent, and sober servants and agents to handle, control, direct, manage, and operate its cars running on and along its said line of railway, and to so direct, manage, and control the movement and operation of its said cars that they would not strike, collide with, or in any manner interfere with each other while running on and along said line of railway, and particularly so that the car in which plaintiff was a passenger would not be brought into collision with any other car propelled or driven over defendant's said line of railway in an opposite direction, or otherwise.

"And plaintiff further alleges that said defendant did not regard its said duties, but, on the contrary thereof, wrongfully, negligently, and willfully disregarded the same, in this, to wit, that it did not then and there safely carry and convey said plaintiff from said city of Mt. Clemens to said city of Detroit; that it failed to exercise due care in directing, propelling, operating, managing, and maintaining said car in which plaintiff was a passenger so that it would pass safely over said line of railway aforesaid; that it did not so direct, manage, control, maintain, and operate its said line of railway as to avoid a collision between the cars running back and forth thereon; that it did not employ careful, competent, skillful, prudent, and sober servants and agents to handle, control, direct, manage, and operate its cars running on and along its said line of railway, and failed to so direct, manage, and control the movement and operation of its said cars that they would not collide with each other, and particularly so that the car in which plaintiff was a passenger would not collide with any other car of said defendant's being propelled or driven over said line of railway in an opposite direction, or otherwise.

"And plaintiff further alleges that as the car in which she was a passenger was being propelled and driven on said line of railway along the Gratiot road, so called, to wit, from said city of Mt. Clemens towards the city of Detroit aforesaid, and when it had reached a certain point in the said county of Macomb between switch number five (5) and switch number four (4), to wit, about three and one-half miles from said city of Mt. Clemens, the defendant, by its servants and agents, acting for and in its behalf, wrongfully, negligently, and willfully disregarding its duties as aforesaid, then and there so improperly, carelessly, heedlessly, recklessly, and negligently drove, propelled, directed, operated, and managed its cars running each way on and along its said line of railway that a collision occurred between a car running towards the city of Mt. Clemens and the car in which plaintiff was a passenger; that by reason of said collision said cars were badly wrecked and damaged, and the plaintiff, without any fault or negligence on her part, and while in the exercise of due care and caution, was violently thrown from her seat, and was then and there caught and crushed between the framework and the seat of the car in which she was a passenger, and did then and there suffer serious and permanent injury to her head, arms, legs, thighs, ribs, spine, hips, back and kidneys, and did then and there receive serious and permanent internal injuries, and did then and there suffer a serious and permanent rupture of the tissues in the region of the kidneys, and did then and there receive a serious and permanent injury to her right hip, hip joint, pelvis, and thigh, and was then and there paralyzed and otherwise permanently injured, and was then and there greatly bruised, hurt, and wounded, and became sick, sore, lame, and disordered, and so remained and continued for a long time, to wit, from thence hitherto; and plaintiff has ever since suffered great physical pain and injury, and has undergone great mental anxiety and nervous prostration, and was confined to her bed for a long space of time, to wit, three months, and was compelled to lay out and expend for medical services and for medicines and surgical appliances a large sum of money, to wit two thousand dollars, and has ever since been unable to perform and transact her lawful affairs and business; and plaintiff avers that by reason of the premises she is permanently injured and disabled, and that all of said losses and injuries resulted from the aforesaid acts of negligence and wrongdoing on the part of the defendant, to the plaintiff's damage fifty thousand dollars, and therefore she brings suit.

"Dated March 30, 1896."

At the close of the evidence, defendant moved to have all the testimony as to trouble to the sciatic nerve resulting from the injury stricken out, because there was no allegation of trouble in that regard.

Brennan, Donnelly & Van De Mark, for appellant.

Fred H. Warren, for appellee.

LONG J.

Plaintiff was a passenger on one of defen...