Bowes v. New England Transp. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 January 1940
• Citation: Bowes v. New England Transp. Co., 10 A.2d 589, 126 Conn. 200 (Conn. 1940)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BOWES v. NEW ENGLAND TRANSP. CO.

10 A.2d 589

126 Conn. 200

BOWES v. NEW ENGLAND TRANSP. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

January 3, 1940

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas for Judicial District of Waterbury; Miles F. McNiff, Deputy Judge.

Action by Gertrude S. Bowes against the New England Transportation Company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant, brought to the Court of Common Pleas for the Judicial District of Waterbury and tried to the court.From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Error and judgment directed for defendant.

Generally a carrier is bound to warn passengers of a danger when circumstances are such that carrier ought reasonably to foresee that danger exists and that a passenger would not, in exercise of reasonable care, be likely to observe and apprehend danger.

James W. Grady, of New Haven, and Edwin H. Hall of Bridgeport, for appellant.

Richardson Bronson and William J. Secor, Jr., both of Waterbury, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS, JJ.

BROWN Judge.

The plaintiff, a passenger on a bus of the defendant, was injured by bumping her head against the luggage rack over her seat as she stood up preparatory to getting off.By its assignments of error upon this appeal from the court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant attacks the court's finding and conclusions, as well as the overruling of its claims of law, and thereby presents the questions as to whether the court erred in concluding that the defendant was negligent, and that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence.Although the plaintiff alleged in her complaint that the defendant was negligent in using a bus equipped with an overhead luaggage rack like the one in question, and also in failing to warn the plaintiff of the danger of striking her head thereon, by its finding the court determined that the defendant's negligence causing the plaintiff's injury was confined to the latter ground, and it is expressly conceded by the plaintiff that this is the only negligence upon which she relies.Since our conclusion upon this issue is determinative of the appeal, it is unnecessary to discuss that of the plaintiff's freedom from contributory negligence.

The following material facts are undisputed.The plaintiff, a woman forty-two years of age and sixty-one inches in height, boarded the defendant's bus as a passenger on the afternoon of July 12, 1938, carrying two suit boxes about two feet long by one and one-half feet in width and a bag containing a hat.Opposite the last cross seat on the left side of the bus, the plaintiff looked at the overhead baggage rack, intending to put her packages into it, but seeing it was filled, placed them on the part of that seat next to the window and sat down on the part next to the aisle.The backs of the seats slanted backward, making it difficult though not impossible for one getting up from his seat to stand up straight until he has stepped out into the aisle.The consequent normal action of a passenger in sliding sideways in or out of the seat with body bent would prevent his striking his head on the rack.No warning was given to the plaintiff of any danger of striking her head should she stand up.After the bus had stopped to let her off, the plaintiff stood up in front of her seat, turned and bent down to pick up her bundles, and as she straightened up, hit the top of her head against the luggage rack, resulting in her injury.She had ridden on this and similar buses and used their overhead luggage racks many times, and knew the position of the racks in this as well as in the other buses.She had not struck her head thereon before.

The luggage rack was made of sheet aluminum, ran practically the entire length of the bus, extended out from the side wall about half way over the part of the seat on which plaintiff sat, and at that point was fifty-four inches from the floor.The bottom of the rack was seventeen inches from the roof, accommodating an ordinary suit case.Since 1933 buses with similar racks at no greater height from the floor, have been and still are being built by the largest bus manufacturers of the country.They are in use today in every state in the union, and more than ten thousand of them were in operation at the time of this accident.From an engineer's standpoint, to provide a place for luggage inside the bus within the passenger's control, and at the same time to maintain a low center of gravity for safety in operation, it is necessary to locate the baggage racks with no greater clearance from the floor.Since the inception of inside baggage racks in 1926, there have been no buses constructed with these racks which have head room beneath them for the ordinary passenger to stand upright.When this bus was manufactured in 1933, it was the latest in design for the safety and comfort of passengers.The manufacturer of it has never installed warning signs in buses made by it and makes no recommendation for such installation.Such a sign could have been installed at small expense.In other types of transportation in general use today, such as taxicabs sleeping-berths, airplanes, and railroad trains, a passenger is confined to limited movements.The public utilities commission...