Hansen v. N. Jersey St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1900
• Parties: HANSEN v. NORTH JERSEY ST. RY. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

46 A. 718

64 N.J.L. 686

HANSEN

v. NORTH JERSEY ST. RY. CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 25, 1900.

(Syllabus by the Court)

Error to supreme court.

Action by Johanna M. Hansen against the North Jersey Street-Railway Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order granting a new trial (43 Atl.663), plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

McEwan & McEwan, for plaintiff in error Vredenburgh & Garretson, for defendant in error.

ADAMS, J.The plaintiff brought suit to-recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the defondant. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant. This direction was excepted to, and on it error has been assigned.

It appears that at about half-past 9 o'clock in the evening of Decoration Day, 1898, the plaintiff, with her married daughter, got on a closed car of the defendant company at Bergen Point, which was bound from Bayonne to the Jersey City Perry. They took seats on the right-hand side of the car, near the front. Only a few persons were then in the car. The plaintiff lived at No. 161 Palisade avenue, in the northern part of Jersey City. Both she and her daughter received tickets entitling them to a transfer to a court-house car at a point of transfer called by the witnesses the "Junction," which is at the corner of Grand and Communipaw avenues. The car reached the junction between 10 and half-past 10 o'clock. By this time it had become crowded. When it stopped at the junction the plaintiff and her daughter rose from their seats, and attempted to leave the car by the rear door, which was more distant from them than the front door. Some of the passengers went out at the rear door. The motorman, in order to facilitate the exit of passengers, opened the front door and the gate on the right-hand side, and the passengers who were in the forward end of the car pressed in that direction. It was the custom, for the accommodation of passengers, to open both doors at this place when there was a crowded car. The plaintiff and her daughter, not being able to make headway towards the rear door, to which they had at first turned, had to yield to the current that was flowing in the opposite direction, and proceeded or were pushed along towards the front of the car. The conductor remained throughout on the rear platform. The motorman stood at his post on the front platform, facing towards the inside of the car, and observing the passengers as they came out. After they had left the car he closed the front door and right-hand gate and awaited the signal to go ahead. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff tended to prove that she was injured in endeavoring to leave the car. It is not claimed that there was any structural defect in the platform or step. The negligence imputed to the defendant is having more passengers than could safely and prudently be carried, and overcrowding the car and platform. In order to an accurate view of the case, it is necessary to refer somewhat particularly to the proof. The evidence as to the accident was as follows:

The plaintiff, who testified through an interpreter, said: "We went to the junction, and then the conductor called, 'Junction;' and, as we were going to make connection with the court-house car, we got up and wanted to go to the rear platform. But at once the people were so crowded that they forced us to the front platform, and from the front platform I got a push on the step, and I got such a severe push on my right shoulder that I fell from the step to the fender, and so I bruised my arm. My hand is broken in two different places, and my whole side was bruised; and my eye here— I couldn't hardly see out of this eye. Q. What do you say about people standing in the aisle of the car when you got to the junction? A. Well, it was a great crowd, and they gave me a push: very much crowded, and so they pushed me on the front platform. Q. Were people standing between the seats on the car? A. Certainly. It was all full, all full; and as soon as they opened the front door we was forced to the front platform. Q. Do you know who opened the front door? A. No; I can't tell, sir. We was just on our way to go out through the rear, and they forced us to the front." On cross-examination she again said that the car was very much crowded when it reached the junction, and that she and her daughter started to go to the rear door, but were forced to go out of the front door. The cross-examination proceeded as follows: "Q. If you had sat still they would not have forced you? A. If the conductor calls 'Junction,' and you want to make connection, I guess you have to get up. When we got up, the front door was closed, and we did not know the front door would be opened. Q. Was there a crowd at the back door? A. No. Q. Why didn't you go out of the back door? A. Because they forced us to the front platform. The crowd forced us. Q. And you went out to the front platform? A. Yes. Q. And did you stop on the step? A. Yes, sir. Q. Got safe onto the step? A. Yes, sir. Q. iou got on the step safely? A. I was forced from the platform to the step, and from the step I received such a push on my right side that 1 fell just that way over the fender. Q. How could you fall over the fender from the step? A. I got pushed so hard. Q. You did not fall over the front of the dashboard, did you? A. No, sir. Q. How could you fall over the fender in the front, from being pushed off the step? A. Well, but I fell on the fender. Q. But the fender is on the front? A. Yes; I know it. Q. Didn't you walk around there and tumble on the fender after you got off the car? A. No; I did not. I was on the car, and from the car I fell on the fender from the side. * * * Q. Your idea was that when you got off you would go around the front of the car, and get to the court-house car? A. No; I never go around the fender. I always go around the other way. * * * Q. And you said when you were on the platform somebody pushed you on the step? A. Yes. Q. And gave another push, and you fell on the fender? A. Yes; on the fender. Q. What is your age? A. Sixtyeight"

Mrs. Christian Dahl, the plaintiff's daughter, testified that when the car reached the Junction it was very much crowded by passengers standing; that she and her mother, when they rose from their seats to leave the car, turned towards the rear door, but that at once the front door was opened, and that they were forced out with the crowd through the front door. Her examination proceeded as follows: "Q. Were you ahead or behind your mother' A. No; I was ahead, because I intended to get out first, to help my mother out. Q. Go on and tell what happened to your mother. A. I got out first to help my mother out, but I got out, fortunately, although I received a push; and my mother was pushed from the front platform to the step, and from the step she received such a severe push on her right side and shoulder that she struck the fender and caught her foot, and fell right down towards the fender. Q. What part of the fender did she strike,—the front or the back? A. No; more than the front. She was thrown from the car. The push that she had received threw her in that direction." A part of Mrs. Dahl's cross-examination is as follows: "Q. You stepped on the step? A. Yes, Q. And stepped off safely? A. Yes; I got off, fortunately. Q. Who was the next person behind you? A. My mother. Q. Right close behind? A. Yes. Q. Did you see anybody push her? A. The crowd was all pushing, but I could not say who it was. Some passengers. They pushed her on the side and right shoulder. Q. Did they put their hand on her? You did not see any one push your mother at all? A. I said the crowds were all pushing out that way. They pushed me, and I got out, fortunately. Q. Will you answer my question? Did you see anybody push your mother? A. I did not see the hand, but I saw the crowd was all going out that way. * * * Q. And this push came on your mother? A. Upon her right side. Q. And from that push she fell on the fender? A. Yes; a severe push. Q. Can you describe how that was done? The fender was on the front of the car? A. Yes; but they gave her such a severe push, which threw her over in that direction. Q. How could she be pushed on the front? A. That was how it was done." This testimony tended to prove that the company of outgoing passengers exerted considerable pressure, and that some person or persons who stood on the front platform behind the plaintiff acted rudely, crowding her off the platform onto the step, and then pushing her violently from the step, so that she fell on the fender.

Several witnesses were called in defense. it was admitted that the plaintiff's injuries "ame from falling on the fender. The testimony for the defendant as to the occurrence of the accident was, for the most part, either not inconsistent with that of the plaintiff and her daughter, or did not strongly and distinctly contradict it. William Doran, the conductor, said that he was on the rear platform while the passengers were getting out, and did not know that any one had fallen at the other end of the car. The examination of Alfred Gross, the motorman, was in part as follows: "Q. And when you got to the Junction what did you do? A. I stopped the car, sir. Q. Then what happened? A. I opened the front door first. Then I opened the gate. Q. The car then standing still? A. Standing perfectly still, sir. Q. And what happened? A. I turned around after opening the door. I stood facing the door. Q. You opened the gate first? A. Yes; and opened the door, and stood facing the door, and the passengers got out. Q. Was there crowding going on there? A. There was a few people there, sir. Q. Well, what happened? A. After the passengers got off I closed the front door again, closed the gate, and stood ready to start the car. Q. After the passengers got out, you closed the front door? A. Yes. Q. Closed the gate? A. Yes. Q. And stood ready to get the signal to go ahead? ...