Clark v. Durham Traction Co

• Citation: 50 S.E. 518, 138 N.C. 77
• Case Date: April 11, 1905
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

138 N.C. 77
50 S.E. 518

CLARK.
v.
DURHAM TRACTION CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 11, 1905.

CARRIERS — STREET RAILROADS — INJURIES TO PASSENGERS — PREMATURE START — NEGLIGENCE—DUTY OF CONDUCTOR—DAMAGES.

1. Plaintiff alighted from a street car, on which he had paid his fare, and received a transfer to a connecting line. As he attempted to board the connecting car at the usual place for the transfer of passengers, he was thrown to the street and injured by the sudden start of the car when he had one foot on the step and the other on the ground. Held, that plaintiff was a passenger at the time he was injured.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, § 989.]

2. Where plaintiff was injured by the sudden starting of a street car before he had succeeded in boarding it at a regular stopping place, and it appeared that at the time the conductor was not at his post of duty controlling the movements of the car, an instruction that such facts, if believed, were sufficient to establish the street car company's negligence was not error.

TEd. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, § 1159.]

3. It is the duty of a street car conductor to be at his station on the platform where passen-; gers are in the habit of boarding the car, and to give them such assistance as is necessary, and see that the motoiman is not signaled to start until reasonable time has been given passengers assembled, who manifested an intention to get on the car, to do so.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, § 1159.]

4. In an action for injuries to a passenger by the premature starting of a street car, an instruction authorizing a recovery of damages for actual nursing, medical expenses, and "loss of time, or loss from inability to perform ordinary labor or capacity to earn money, " was proper.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 15, Cent. Dig. Damages, §§ 237-254, 548, 553, 554.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Durham County; Bryan, Judge.

Action by W. Y. Clark against Durham Traction Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is a civil action tried before his honor Judge Bryan in the superior court of Durham county for the recovery of damages for injury by the negligence of the defendant. The court submitted the following issues: "(1) Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Ans. Yes. (2) If so, did the plaintiff, by negligence on bis part, contribute

[50 S.E. 519]

to said Injury? Ans. No. (3) What damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover? Ans. $500." From the judgment rendered, the defendant appealed.

Maiming & Foushee, for appellant.

Winston & Bryant, for appellee.

BROWN, J. The first proposition which is presented by several of the exceptions of the defendant brings up the question as to whether or not the plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant's line at the time of the injury sustaiued by him. The court charged the jury, if they believed the evidence in the case to be true, to find that the plaintiff was a passenger. In this instruction we see no error. The only testimony upon this point is that of the plaintiff himself and the testimony of the defendant's witness Sorrell. We see nothing in the testimony of the latter tending to contradict the statement of the plaintiff as to his relation to the defendant company at the time of the injury. The plaintiff stated that he boarded the street car of the defendant in East Durham, paid his fare, received a transfer for the Main Street Line, and was brought to the Mangum street connection; got off at the crossing of Main and Mangum streets for the purpose of boarding the other car, and attempted to do so. The car stopped at the usual place for the transfer of passengers. Two men preceded him, and boarded the car successfully. Plaintiff followed immediately behind, got hold of the rod on the west side of the vestibule at the end of the car with his right hand, and put his foot on the steps of the car. Before he got his weight entirely on the car, it started. At that time he had his right foot on the steps of the car and his right band on the vestibule rod. No warning was given. The conductor was not present at that end of the car. Plaintiff says he saw the conductor sitting close to a young lady. No one helped him on the car. The car started suddenly, and jerked the plaintiff down on the pavement. These uncontradicted facts, we think, justify the court in charging the jury that, if they believed them to be true, plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant's line. It is the settled law in this state, so far as steam railroads are concerned, that when a person comes upon the premises of a railroad company at the station, and has a ticket, or with the purpose of purchasing one, he becomes thereby a passenger of the company. Tillett v. Railroad, 115 N. C. 665, 20 S. E. 480; Seawell v. Railroad, 132 N. C. 859, 44 S. E. 610. The authorities in other states, where electric lines are more extensively operated than in this, all go to show that the same principle is applied to the operation of surface railroads whether operated by steam or...