Donovan v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co
| Decision Date | 17 February 1913 |
| Docket Number | 19,365 |
| Citation | 61 So. 216,132 La. 239 |
| Parties | DONOVAN et al. v. NEW ORLEANS RY. & LIGHT CO |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
A street car company is liable to a passenger injured while attempting to alight from a car by the sudden and negligent starting of the car.
Where one has been injured, but is advised by competent physicians that the injury can be remedied by an operation that is ordinarily not dangerous, but refuses to submit to the operation, she is not minimizing her damages, and cannot recover for the sufferings which would be avoided by the needed operation. It is incumbent upon the injured person to submit to reasonable treatment, and to follow the advice of competent physicians.
Dart Kernan & Dart, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Woodville & Woodville, of New Orleans, for appellees.
Mrs. Katherine Donovan, assisted by her husband, John Donovan, brought suit against the New Orleans Railway & Light Company, claiming $ 10,500 damages as a result of an accident she met with on the 22d day of January, 1912. She was thrown from one of the steps of one of defendant's cars on the Claiborne line. She alleges: That the car was approaching St. Bernard avenue about 9 o'clock p. m. That she signaled it to stop to permit her and three others of her party to alight. The usual signal was given, with which defendant's conductor complied just before the car reached the regular foot crossing at St. Bernard avenue. That the car was standing still, and she, together with the other passengers with her, walked to the steps. As she was in the act of alighting, the car, without the least notice, suddenly started, and moved a short distance of six or eight feet to the regular crossing. That in alighting on the step she was thrown down to the ground and injured. She charged that the motorman carelessly started the car, and that the conductor gave no notice whatever. She averred that she did not have the least reason to believe that the car would move as it did, and that as a passenger she was entitled to some attention, which was not shown her. Painful and permanent injuries were the result of the fall. They consist of a serious hematoma of the left side and an umbilical hernia containing omentum, as diagnosed by her physician, who advised her that it would be necessary for her to undergo a painful operation. She also complained of an injury to her hip.
The defense pleaded a general denial, and alleged that the accident was the result of her fault in attempting to alight from a moving car.
The jury found a verdict in her favor in the sum of $ 6,000, and a judgment was accordingly signed allowing the amount, with legal interest from the date of the judgment.
The defendant perfected an appeal from the judgment.
The facts are as recited above. The car was stopped on the ringing of the bell. Plaintiff was attempting to alight. The starting of the car took her by surprise. The jolt shook her off, and threw her several feet away. Those who were with her on the car testified corroborating her statement about her fall.
We consider that plaintiff has made proof sufficient to entitle her to damages. The amount to be allowed is about the only question as the features of the case are exceptional by reason of the fact that, despite the advice of her physician and the physician of the defendant, she has refused to undergo a surgical operation which they say is the only possible cure for the umbilical hernia caused by the fall. Both physicians testified that, unless an operation was performed, she would not recover, and she would always be an invalid and suffer.
Plaintiff was 47 years of age at the date of the trial in the lower court; had been married 25 years; has reared four children. She was in good health before the accident, and the physicians were of the opinion that a surgical operation would not prove fatal. They said that there is always danger in the performance of an operation; but that in this instance there was no reason for apprehending serious results.
We have no reason to deduce that she had any of the ailments which render the use of an anaesthetic dangerous, such as disease...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
95-271 La.App. 3 Cir. 10/4/95, Cobb v. Kleinpeter
...1176 (La.1979) (amended on rehearing); Unverzagt v. Young Builders, Inc., 215 So.2d 823, 252 La. 1091 (1968); Donovan v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 61 So. 216, 132 La. 239 (1913); Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co., 304 So.2d 370 (La.App. 1st Cir.1974); Riley v. Frantz, 253 So.2d 237 ......
-
Lucas v. Deville
...to submit to reasonable medical treatment, including surgery, to minimize his damages against a tort-feasor. Donovan v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 132 La. 239, 61 So. 216 (1913); Dark v. Brinkman, 136 So.2d 463 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1962); Bowers v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, 131 So.2......
-
Jacobs as Tutor of Jacobs v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
...1176 (La.1979) (amended on rehearing); Unverzagt v. Young Builders, Inc., 215 So.2d 823, 252 La. 1091 (1968); Donovan v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 61 So. 216, 132 La. 239 (1913); Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co., 304 So.2d 370 (La.App. 1st Cir.1974); Riley v. Frantz, 253 So.2d 237 ......
-
Dark v. Brinkman
...we find no error in this basis for the computation of the award for the personal injuries. Donovan v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 132 La. 239, 61 So. 216, 48 L.R.A.,N.S., 109; Williams v. Parker, La.App. 1 Cir., 130 So.2d 711; Jenkins v. American Auto. Ins. Co., La.App. 2 Cir., 111 So.2d 8......