Cumberland Valley R. Co. v. Maugans

• Decision Date: 19 December 1883
• Citation: 61 Md. 53
• Parties: THE CUMBERLAND VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. MAUGANS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

61 Md. 53

THE CUMBERLAND VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. MAUGANS.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 19, 1883

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County.

This was an action brought by the appellee to recover damages from the appellant for injuries he sustained through its negligence, while stepping from one of its cars at Green Castle, a station on its road. The plaintiff testified that he got upon a train of the defendant at Maugansville, where he resided, and paid his passage to Green Castle, a regular station on the defendant's road, in company with his mother, an unmarried sister, a married sister, with her husband and two children, aged four and six years; the two children and a valise containing the clothing of his married sister and two children, weighing from fifteen to twenty pounds, and a basket containing provisions for his sister and children, weighing from eight to twelve pounds, were under his charge, his sister's husband having gone, before the train stopped, to the front car to look after his baggage which the defendant refused to check, never having checked baggage from the Maugansville station; that as the train approached Green Castle, he carried said valise and basket to a short seat near the door of the car, preparatory to leaving, and took his position at the door with the children with his hand upon the knob, and at the instant the train stopped, he opened the door and stepped one foot out on the platform and passed the children out on the platform of the car, where some one took them and helped them down; that he immediately turned around for the valise and basket, as he did so, his mother and sisters immediately followed the children out; that he picked up the valise and basket without delay, and started to go out of the car when he met at the door passengers coming in, which delayed him an instant, and as soon as possible he got upon the platform of the car in which he had been riding, with the intention of leaving the car, and in the act of leaving the car, with the basket on his left arm and the valise in his right hand, he then noticed that the train was beginning to move, and the steps of the platform of that car being full of persons, he stepped as rapidly as he could to the platform of the car in front and from there down the steps onto the station platform which was level with the track, while the train was in slow motion, it having moved ten or twelve, or probably fourteen feet from where it had been standing; in stepping from the last step of said car to the station platform, with the basket on his left arm, and valise in his right hand, while the train was in motion as aforesaid, he fell and was injured; that as he stepped from the platform of the car in which he had been riding, to the platform of the front car he saw the brakeman and assistant ticket agent standing on the steps of that car; he said, "gentlemen, make room, I want to get off;" as he passed down the steps of that car, he passed the brakeman, who was standing on the second step, and who said to him, "Why did you not get off sooner?" to which he replied, "Because I could not;" on the third or last step, stood the assistant ticket agent, and as he, plaintiff, passed him and was about stepping from the last step, he, the said ticket agent, placed his hand on plaintiff's shoulder, and said, "Be careful, you might fall;" plaintiff supposed he put his hand on him to assist him down; that he was prevented from taking hold of the railing of the car, because the brakeman and assistant ticket agent were standing on the steps, with their backs against the car; that the left hand of the arm on which he had the basket was free, with which he could have taken hold of the rail on that side if they had not been there, and he could have put the valise in the other hand, and would have had his right hand free if these men had not been on the steps; in forming the intention to get off the cars, and in the act of getting off, he used all the care and prudence he could, and he used all the haste and diligence he could in getting off; that he did not give any notice to any of the defendant's agents or employees, (except as before stated,) that he intended to get off the cars, and did not request them to stop the train after he found it was in motion; that he passed off the train as rapidly as he could; no one could have gotten off quicker; that his intention was to get off the train after he found it was in motion, and the action of the assistant ticket agent did not influence him in getting off the train; that the accident would not have occurred if he had not stepped off the train; and that it is more hazardous to attempt to get off a train with basket and valise than without them. And further, that neither the conductor nor brakeman were at the steps of the car, on the arrival of the train at Green Castle, to assist the passengers with their children and baggage from the cars; that passengers getting on were rushing in the cars before those destined for Green Castle had time to get off, and that plaintiff's mother and sisters were crowded in getting down; that the brakeman who was standing on the step when plaintiff was getting off, did not offer to stop the train and let him off, nor did he tell plaintiff it was dangerous to attempt to leave the car at the time he was in the act of getting off, nor did the brakeman in any way assist, or offer to assist him in getting off, by relieving him of his baggage, or advising him as to how he should get off; that he did not know there was any danger in getting off the train whilst it was moving slowly, and that if he had known it was, he would not have gotten off.

The defendant offered evidence tending to prove that the assistant ticket agent was standing on the third or last step of the car, and that he did not notice the plaintiff until he was in the act of getting off the last car step on to the station platform, which was eighteen inches down from the last step; that the train had moved at least fifty feet from where it had first stopped; that there were eleven passengers let off the train at that station, and thirteen passengers got on the train before the cars started, and the train reached Green Castle on time.

Prayers were offered on both sides, but their insertion is deemed unnecessary. One of the prayers of the defendant, which the court (Alvey, J.,) rejected, was as follows:

9. That upon the undisputed facts in this case, the plaintiff has shown no ground for action, and therefore the verdict must be for the defendant.

The defendant excepted to the rulings of the court, and appealed, the verdict and judgment being for the plaintiff.

The cause was argued before Miller, Yellott, Irving, and Ritchie, JJ.

John Stewart and Geo. W. Smith, Jr., for the appellant.

The only question in this case is, was there such contributory negligence upon the part of the plaintiff in attempting to hastily alight from the train, while it was in motion, encumbered, as he was, by baggage, and without the free use of his hands and arms, as to bar his recovery? The rule of law established in Maryland, governing cases of this character, has been clearly defined by this court, in a number of cases, to be that, "It is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that the injury was caused entirely by the negligence or default of the defendant's agents, and it must not appear from the evidence that want of ordinary care and prudence on the part of the deceased directly contributed to the cause," etc. Stansbury's Case, 54 Md. 656; Burns' Case, 54 Md. 119; Foy's Case, 47 Md. 82.

If, therefore, this plaintiff has been guilty of a want of ordinary care and prudence which directly contributed to the cause of the injury he cannot recover. What is a want of ordinary care and prudence? It has been defined to be, such conduct as would be condemned as careless by men of common prudence. Wills v. R. R. Co. 129 Mass. 351.

Would any man of common prudence attempt to hastily alight from a train of cars in motion, so encumbered with baggage that he had not the free use of his hands and arms to assist himself down a step eighteen inches to the station platform? The want of care and prudence consisted in attempting to get off under the circumstances, and not the care and prudence he may have exercised in jumping from the last step of the car to the station platform, which the plaintiff says is more hazardous to attempt with a basket and valise than without them.

In a large number of cases the courts have decided that it is a want of ordinary care and prudence to attempt to leave a train while it is in motion, and as matter of law, say that a recovery cannot be had in such cases. Jewell's Case, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases, 379; Nichol's Case, 106 Mass. 465. Lucas' Case, 6 Gray 70, in which the court says that the plaintiff, "by exercising ordinary care, that is, by remaining in the car, might have avoided the consequences of the defendant's negligence." Aspell's Case, 23 Pa. St. 149; Lewis' Case, 38 Md. 598; Nelson's Case, 68 Mo. 594; State v. R. R. Co. 129 Mass. 500; ...