Cartwright v. Chicago & G.T. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1884 |
| Citation | 18 N.W. 380,52 Mich. 606 |
| Parties | CARTWRIGHT v. CHICAGO & G.T. RY. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
If a railroad car is stopped at a place where it would not be safe for the passengers to alight, it is the duty of the company to give assistance or warning or move the car to a more suitable place.
It is not negligence per se for a passenger to leave the car by the rear end.
The evidence as to the negligence both plaintiff and defendant was such that it was proper to submit the whole case to the jury.
Error to Genesee.
H.R. Lovell, for plaintiff.
E.W Meddaugh, for defendant and appellant.
This is an action for personal injury, and the plaintiff recovered in the circuit court. The only questions that need to be considered are--First, whether there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant to be submitted to the jury; and, second, whether the evidence conclusively showed contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
The injury occurred December 28, 1881. The plaintiff was a woman 60 years of age, and resided with her husband, who was still older and rheumatic, at Davison, a country station about nine miles west of Flint. On the day named she went to Flint with her husband, and returned on the evening train, which arrived at Davison about 9 o'clock. The train was composed of six cars, made up as follows: Mail car, express car, baggage car smoker, way car, and sleeper. Plaintiff and her husband entered the way car, which they found full, and took the rear seat behind the door. It was a dark cloudy and wet evening. When the train stopped at Davison the evidence tends to show that the smoker stood partially along-side the station platform, but the way car was not up to it. No light was displayed at the rear end of the way car nor, as we conclude from the record, at the front end, but there was a light on the platform which would possibly aid in alighting there. A drunken man in one of the cars further forward appears to have had the attention of the men on the train when the train stopped, and aid was not given to the passengers in leaving the way car. The most of them went forward and alighted safely, but plaintiff and her husband got out at the rear end of the car. There is a road crossing at that place, and plaintiff was familiar with the locality. She had seen the cars stop there before, and passengers step down into the road, and she thought the car then stood where if she stepped down she would step into the level part of the road. She therefore stepped down in the dark. She had several packages on her left arm, but her right hand was at liberty, and with that she took hold of the iron rod by the side of the steps. Instead of being over the level road as she supposed, the end of the car was over a depression at the side of the road, and when her foot left the step she went down so far that her hold of the iron was broken and she fell to the ground. Her foot slipped on the wet ground and turned under, and her leg was broken. She lay helpless until assistance could be procured. It was not until after the train had left that she was taken up and carried into the station, and medical assistance obtained. During all the time of the stop no one connected with the train or employed by the defendant was giving assistance to the plaintiff or her husband, or looking after passengers at the rear end of the car they had occupied.
It is contended on the part of the defense that the plaintiff was negligent in leaving the car where she did; that the only proper place for leaving was where there was light, and where assistance was provided, and that, if needful, she should have passed through the car in front of the way car from which, if not from the way car, she might have...
To continue reading
Request your trial