Betts v. Wilmington City Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1902
• Citation: 19 Del. 448,53 A. 358
• Court: Delaware Superior Court
• Parties: SAMUEL F. BETTS v. WILMINGTON CITY RAILWAY COMPANY

53 A. 358

19 Del. 448

SAMUEL F. BETTS v. WILMINGTON CITY RAILWAY COMPANY

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

January 8, 1902

Superior Court, New Castle County, November Term, 1901.

ACTION ON THE CASE (No. 122, November Term, 1900), for personal injuries to the plaintiff while alighting from a car of the defendant company in the city of Wilmington, said plaintiff being a passenger upon the said car. Facts appear in charge of Court.

Verdict for defendant.

Levi C Bird and Andrew E. Sanborn for plaintiff.

Walter H. Hayes for defendant.

LORE C. J., and SPRUANCE and GRUBB, J. J., sitting.

OPINION

LORE, C. J., charging the jury:

Gentlemen of the jury:--Samuel F. Betts, the plaintiff in this action, claims that on the twenty-fifth day of August, 1900, he was a passenger on one of the electric street railway cars of the defendant company, on his way from Darby, Pa., to his home in this city. That while coming south on Market street in this city, before reaching Twelfth street, he stood up, signalled the conductor of the car to stop by raising his hand and calling out "Twelfth street"; that the conductor recognized his signal, assented to it by a nod, but did not stop the car until it had nearly reached the middle of the square between Twelfth and Eleventh streets; that the car then stopped there, and while he was in the act of getting off the car suddenly started up, whereby he was thrown upon the ground with such force as to break his nose, bruise and injure his face, hands and body, so that he has therefrom become quite deaf and greatly impaired in health and strength.

In this suit he claims at your hands damages for the injuries he then received, which he claims resulted from the negligence of the defendant company.

The defendant, however, claims that the injuries resulted from the negligence of the plaintiff himself, in that he attempted to get off the car while it was in rapid motion, before the car had stopped and before it had reached the regular stopping place.

The sharp issue is therefore presented, from whose negligence, if any there was, did these injuries result?

To enable the plaintiff to recover at all, he must show to your satisfaction by a preponderance of the evidence, that the negligence which caused the accident, if any there was, was the fault of the defendant company. The burden of proving such negligence is upon the plaintiff. If the defendant company was guilty of no negligence, it is entitled to your verdict, whatever injuries the plaintiff may have received.

It is not disputed in this case that the defendant company was, at the time of the accident, a common carrier of passengers for hire, and that the plaintiff was rightfully on the car of the company as such passenger. We are asked to instruct you, therefore as to the respective rights and duties of such common carrier and also of such passenger.

We find the duty of such common carrier to its passengers nowhere better expressed than in one of the decisions of our own State--viz., Flinn vs. P., W. & B. R. R. Co., 1 Houst. 469--which is the leading case in this State on the subject.

The Court there say: "A common carrier of passengers is liable for injuries to the latter only in case of his negligence. But the law in its beneficence will not allow any trifling with the lives or personal safety of human beings and therefore exacts great care, diligence and skill from those to whose charge as common carriers they are committed; common carriers of passengers are responsible for any negligence resulting in injury to them, and are required in the preparation, conduct and management of their means of conveyance, to exercise...