Bukowski v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co.

• Decision Date: 05 April 1910
• Citation: 142 Wis. 517,125 N.W. 912
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: BUKOWSKI v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RY. & LIGHT CO.

142 Wis. 517

125 N.W. 912

BUKOWSKI

v.MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RY. & LIGHT CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 5, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Lawrence W. Halsey, Judge.

Action by John Bukowski, as administrator of Joseph Miscewski, against the Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action to recover damages for the death of one Joseph Miscewski (plaintiff's decedent), caused, as is alleged, by the negligence of defendant's employés. A verdict for the defendant was directed by the trial court, and the plaintiff appeals. The facts, stated most favorably to the appellant, are as follows: Miscewski, the deceased, was a Polish laboring man, 52 years of age, and of average intelligence. At about 6 o'clock p. m., October 26, 1907, he was a passenger on one of defendant's street cars in Milwaukee, carrying with him his shovel, and he alighted from the car as it reached the end of the line and started toward his home. After going 100 feet or more he recollected that he had forgotten his shovel, and he started back towards the car. Meantime the trolley had been reversed and the car had started on its return trip. Miscewski jumped on the rear platform of the moving car after it had gone two or three car lengths, walked rapidly past the conductor, through the car, shouted “Stop, I want my shovel!” in Polish, stood in the front vestibule with his back to the motorman, holding onto the railing on the front door of the car with his left hand, and reaching around into the car with his right hand for his shovel, which was lying on a seat, when the motorman applied more electricity, increasing the speed of the car to about six miles an hour, and in some manner Miscewski fell off from the platform, striking the pavement with his head, and receiving injuries from which he died. His shovel was not removed from the car.Harry M. Silber, for appellant.

Clarke M. Rosecrantz, for respondent.

WINSLOW, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).

We think the verdict was properly directed. No negligence on the part of the motorman was proven. It is very hard to see how the deceased can be considered as a passenger, when he returned to the car and boarded it without informing any one of his purpose; but, even conceding that he should properly be considered as a passenger, he certainly had no greater rights than those of a passenger. His shovel had been left in the car by...