Davis v. Paducah Ry. & Light Co.

• Decision Date: 07 May 1902
• Citation: 113 Ky. 267,68 S.W. 140
• Parties: DAVIS v. PADUCAH RY. & LIGHT CO. [1] Reported by Edward W. Hines, Esq., of the Frankfort bar, and formerly state reporter.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

68 S.W. 140

113 Ky. 267

DAVIS v. PADUCAH RY. & LIGHT CO. ^[1] Reported by Edward W. Hines, Esq., of the Frankfort bar, and formerly state reporter.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 7, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, McCracken county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Rachel Davis against Paducah Railway & Light Company to recover damages for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Hendrick & Miller, for appellant.

HOBSON J.

Appellant Rachel Davis, was a passenger on one of the cars of the appellee, the Paducah Railway & Light Company. The car was very much crowded, and she, being unable to get a seat inside of the car, was on the front platform. As we understand the proof, she was on the front end of the front car, on which was the motor, and behind it were two other cars, called "trailers," which were pulled by it. The cars were coming into the city from the fair ground, and when they first started were moved slowly, to give the conductor time to take up the fares. When the motorman applied the full power of the current, according to the proof for appellant the car began to slow up, and there was a flash of light. The motorman hallooed out loud enough to be heard three squares away: "Throw that trolley off back there. Don't anybody get off this car. There is no danger. Don't anybody get off." He hallooed this several times. The passengers in the car cried, "Fire! The car is on fire!" and began to jump out through the windows, and to rush out pellmell at the doors. The appellant was holding on to the car. The heat flashed up, and burned her hand, so that she had to let go. When she did this, the crowd surging by her knocked or pushed her off the car and trampled upon her inflicting very serious and painful injuries. She was badly bruised, externally and internally, so that blood passed from the bowels, bladder, and mouth, and her leg was seriously, if not permanently, injured. The proof for the appellee only conflicts with that of appellant as to the amount of the flash of flame which caused the stampede among the passengers. On the facts the court instructed the jury as follows: "(1) The court instructs the jury that on the occasion the plaintiff boarded the defendant's street car named in her petition, it was the duty of the defendant company to have provided safe cars in a safe condition in which for passengers to ride in so far as human foresight and judgment by recent inspection could enable the defendant company to know, or in good faith to believe, the cars in good condition by being inspected by a competent employé. The court further instructs the jury that on the occasion aforesaid it became the legal duty of the plaintiff, when going upon said cars, to exercise due care and caution, use her eyes, and act with reasonable care and judgment for her own safety, more especially if she found the car unusually overcrowded with passengers. (2) The court further instructs the jury that if you shall believe from the evidence the cars upon which plaintiff entered on the occasion named in instruction No. 1 were in an unsafe condition, and that said want of safety in the cars was known to the defendant or its employés, or that the same could have been discovered by the inspection of a competent person; and if you shall further believe from the evidence that by reason of such unsafety of said cars, or by the negligent operation of the same (if you believe the same was negligently operated), the plaintiff received the injuries complained of, the law is for the plaintiff, and you will so find; and if you find for the plaintiff you will find compensatory damages; that is damages for the pain, physical and mental, which you may believe from the evidence she suffered before the bringing of this suit, for the loss of time, and for doctor's bill, and for medicine to cure her, and for any permanent injury she may have sustained, altogether not exceeding the amount claimed in plaintiff's petition. (3) The court further instructs the jury that if you shall find for the plaintiff under instruction No. 2, hereinbefore given, your finding of damages shall be limited to the amount you may believe from the evidence the plaintiff sustained alone on account of her falling or jumping from the car to the ground, which she received by her own act in so doing, excluding from your minds and estimate any and all injuries which she may have sustained by reason of other outside negroes running over her or tramping on her after she fell to the ground, as in law the defendant company would not be liable for what other persons may have injured her. (4) The court instructs the jury that, unless you shall believe from the evidence that said motor street car moving the train on the occasion aforesaid...