Dotson v. Erie R. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1903
• Citation: 54 A. 827,68 N.J.L. 679
• Parties: DOTSON et al. v. ERIE R. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

54 A. 827

68 N.J.L. 679

DOTSON et al.

v. ERIE R. CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 2, 1903.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Supreme Court.

Action by Mary T. Dotson and husband against the Erie Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Corbin & Corbin, for plaintiff in error.

Warren Dixon, for defendants in error.

HENDRICKSON, J. This writ brings up for review a judgment of the Supreme Court entered upon a verdict rendered at the Bergen circuit. The defendants in error, who were the plaintiffs below, and are husband and wife, brought suit to recover damages for personal injuries to the wife, resulting from her being struck by the bumper of a locomotive engine of the defendant company at its station in Englewood, in the county of Bergen. For convenience, 1 will hereafter refer to her as the plaintiff below. The grounds of recovery averred in the pleadings were twofold. One was the negligent operation and management of the cars and locomotive of the defendant while running along the platform of the station, under the existing conditions, and the other was negligent construction of the platform, in locating it so near the tracks that its locomotives and cars would overlap the platform, and strike passengers walking along the same, so that on the occasion referred to the plaintiff was struck by one of the defendant's locomotives while she was walking along the edge of the platform, and was at the time in the exercise of due care. There were motions to nonsuit and to direct a verdict on the ground that no negligence was proved, and on the further ground of contributory negligence, which were overruled, and exceptions were allowed and duly sealed.

The learned judge, at the close of his charge, directed the jury that, in case they found a verdict for the plaintiffs, they should find specially whether it was based upon the negligent construction of the platform, or upon the negligence of the engineer in the management of his engine, or upon the negligence of both. In returning their verdict for the plaintiffs, the jury based their finding upon negligent construction, and not upon negligence on the part of the engineer. Thus all questions relating to negligent management of the company's train are eliminated from this discussion. We may appropriately deal with the other questions under the exceptions taken to the charge of the court, and to the refusal to direct a verdict.

Some facts should be stated, to properly illustrate the situation: The general direction of the road at this point was north and south. The station was on the easterly side of the tracks, the west-bound track being the nearer one to the station. The platform of the station was on a level with the top of the rails of the tracks. It consisted of flagging about the station, and then of crushed stone as it approached the track. Immediately along the rails was planking 18 inches wide, and within the rails and between the two tracks the crushed stone continued, so that the whole was on a level from the station to the east-bound track; thus serving as a means of ingress and egress to and from the trains on either of the tracks. The platform is thus extended to the east-bound track for a space up and down the tracks in front of the station of 300 feet. The whole platform is about 685 feet long, and south of the station there is a driveway for carriages along the platform, and 4 feet and a half below its level. The width of the platform at the station is about 50 feet, and at the south end of the station the rear line of the platform curves toward the tracks in a southerly direction until it is narrowed to a width of 10.7 feet, and then runs southwardly of the same width, in rectangular form, along the tracks, a considerable distance. The accident occurred September 3, 1901, about 7:30 o'clock in the evening, and the place where it happened was well lighted by electric lights. The plaintiff came from the town, and entered the platform not far from its southerly end, and was on her way to the station to buy a ticket to her home, in Highwood, a station above. She had walked two or three hundred feet northwardly, and, when she reached a point variously estimated at from 50 feet to 200 feet from the station, she was struck by the bumper of the engine attached to the train she was about to take. It was moving slowly in the same direction she was walking, at the rate of 3 or 4 miles an hour; having slowed up to allow the east-bound train to pull out of the station ahead of it. The plaintiff was walking in about the center of the platform, until a few moments before she was struck, when she diverged in her course toward the rail. She testified that she was crowded toward the rail by passengers who alighted from the down train, but the other witnesses (her own as well as the company's) showed that in this she was probably mistaken. But the fact is not material to the points to be discussed. The engineer, upon seeing her turn toward the rail, gave the danger signal and put on the emergency brake, but too late to avoid the striking of the plaintiff about the hip, and throwing her down upon the platform, causing serious bruises and injuries. The bumper which struck the plaintiff is a square piece of timber, rounded over at the ends, to which the cowcatcher attaches; and it projects to the side far enough to cover the head of the cylinder, which it is intended to protect.

The learned trial judge had charged the jury that, if they found that at the time the plaintiff was struck "she was upon the planking alongside of this railroad, then the verdict should be for the defendant, because it is evident, and must have been evident to every adult person, that that planking was not intended for persons to walk upon," etc. He had further charged that "if she were not upon the planking, but were upon the gravel walk or platform, as it is called, then the question for you to decide would be whether or not she was guilty of negligence in going so near as that to the rail, under the circumstances of the case." It should be observed that there was no evidence in the case which characterized the platform as only extending to the planking next to the rail. Nor was there any evidence that the platform was not properly constructed, or that the planking was intended for a different use than the rest of the platform. The trial court further charged that, if the jury found upon both of these questions in favor of the plaintiff, then "was it negligence in the company itself to have that gravel platform approach so near to the rail that passengers would be likely to be...