Hughes v. Gregory Bus Lines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 May 1930
• Docket Number: 28680
• Citation: 157 Miss. 374,128 So. 96
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: HUGHES v. GREGORY BUS LINES, INC

128 So. 96

157 Miss. 374

HUGHES v. GREGORY BUS LINES, INC

No. 28680

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 5, 1930

Division B

1 CARETERS. Negligence of bus company in failing to secure medical attention for injured passenger on arrival at destination held for jury.

The passenger received an injury to his eye by reason of shattering of glass of bus window struck by a stone, and after receiving temporary treatment continued to his destination, and failed to receive any attention whatsoever, though repeatedly making requests therefor during the night.

2 CARRIERS.

Carrier neglecting to provide medical attention to injured passenger after arrival at destination is liable for resulting damage.

3 CARRIERS.

Whether passenger's eye injured by shattering of glass could have been saved by proper medical attention at destination held for jury, in action against bus carrier.

4. EVIDENCE.

Courts know as matter of common knowledge that all large cities have ample facilities for immediate relief of injured persons.

HON. W. A. ALCORN, JR., Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Bolivar county, Second district HON. W. A. ALCORN, JR., Judge.

Action by Henry Hughes against Gregory Bus Lines, Incorporated. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Smith & Millsaps, of Cleveland, and W. B. Alexander, of Boyle, for appellant.

It is the duty of a common carrier to provide the proper medical aid for a passenger who becomes disabled while in transit, and this duty devolves upon the carrier regardless of under what circumstances the passenger becomes disabled.

2 Hutchinson on Carriers (3 Ed.), at page 1142; Eidson v. Railway Company, 23 So. 369; 4 Ruling Case Law, page 1161; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company v. Weber, 52 Am. Rep. 543; Railroad Co. v. Salzman, 49 Am. St. Rep. 741; Connolly v. Cresent City Railroad Company, 3 L.R.A. 133, 17 Am. St. Rep. 389; Mary McCann v. Newark & South Orange Railway Co., 33 L.R.A. 127; Central of Georgia v. Madden, 21 Am. and Eng. Ann. 1077, 1080; Middleton v. Whitbridge, 213 N.Y. 499, 108 N.E. 192, Ann Cases 1916C, page 856.

The appellee being under the legal duty of securing for appellant proper assistance, or to place him in the hands of an officer or some one who could look after him--the question of whether or not this duty was discharged was for the jury.

Dyche v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Company, 30 So. 711; Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company v. Byrd, 42 So. 286.

Maynard, FitzGerald & Venable, of Clarksdale, and Winchester, Knapp & Bearman, of Memphis, Tennessee, for appellee.

Common carriers, by virtue of their occupation as such, are not under legal duty to furnish doctors and nurses.

New Orleans, etc., Railroad Company v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607; Lakeshore, etc., Railroad Company v. Salsman, 31 L.R.A. 261; Ann. Cas. 1916C, 856 and note.

A carrier is not required to keep hospitals and nurses for sick passengers; but, when the passenger is found by the carrier to be ill or in a helpless condition, it is the duty of the carrier to exercise the reasonable and necessary offices of humanity until some suitable provision can be made.

Atkinson v. Railroad Company, 33 Kan. 543, 52 Am. Rep. 543.

The carrier is under no duty to go to the expense to hire doctors and nurses.

The entire record shows that appellant, after he left Memphis, was mentally and physically able to get his own doctor and look after himself. He being able, there was no necessity or duty on the carrier to do this.

Appellant failed to show by his proof that the loss of the eye and damage was the result of any negligence on the part of appellee as the proximate result thereof. Nothing can be deemed the proximate cause of an injury unless it had not happened the injury would not have occurred.

I. C. Railroad Company v. Wright, 135 Miss. 435.

OPINION

Griffith, J.

On September 17, 1928, appellee was operating a bus line as a common carrier of passengers, and on that date appellant took passage on one of appellee's carriages at O'Reilly in Coahoma county en route to Memphis, having purchased a ticket to that destination. While thus a passenger and at a point near the town of Coahoma, a stone thrown from the road by a passing automobile struck the bus window, next to which appellant was riding, shattering the glass, and a sliver of glass struck appellant in the left eye, cutting the eyelid and penetrating the eyeball. The blood flowed freely, and the passengers, noting the serious injury, informed the driver of the bus, who at once on arrival at Coahoma took the injured passenger to a physician. The physician was not an eye specialist, but upon full examination discovered that the eyeball was dangerously hurt, and having given such temporary treatment, as he could, the physician informed the driver that it was highly important that the injured passenger be placed under expert treatment as soon as he could arrive in Memphis, and that by so doing the eye could probably be saved; and the driver promised to see that this would be done.

Upon arrival at Memphis, it appears that the driver explained the situation to those in charge of the Memphis depot or station of appellee, and apparently the promise made both to the driver and to appellant that prompt steps would be taken, but nothing was done. And although appellant repeated the request several times during the night, no aid was secured, and apparently no effort of any kind was made to assist appellant other than to make a pallet of two bus cushions on which appellant could lie in said station. The testimony shows, or strongly tends to show, that appellant was in such pain and distress and so blinded by his injury as not to be able to do anything intelligently for himself. No help having come during the night, appellant next morning was assisted into a bus en route to St. Louis, where appellant reached the home of a son the following night. During the day a sliver of glass came out of the eye, and although expert treatment was given after appellant reached St....