Johnson v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 September 1898
• Citation: 31 S.E. 212,53 S.C. 303
• Parties: JOHNSON v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

31 S.E. 212

53 S.C. 303

JOHNSON v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

September 28, 1898

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Saluda county; J. C Klugh, Judge.

Action by George Johnson against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

B. L Abney and John P. Thomas, Jr., for appellant.

Tompkins & Wells and S. McG. Simkins, for respondent.

McIVER C.J.

This was an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff in alighting from defendant's train,--caused as alleged, by the negligence of the defendant company. The case, in brief, was this: The plaintiff bought a ticket for his wife from defendant's agent at Monetta, a station on defendant's line, which entitled her to be carried as a passenger from that station to Augusta, Ga. The train was behind time in reaching Monetta, and the plaintiff's wife, who was incumbered with heavy baggage,--a valise,--needed assistance in boarding the train, which not being afforded by any of the railroad employés, her husband, the plaintiff, undertook to carry her valise on the train for her, and, in leaving the train while it was in motion, fell or was thrown to the ground, thereby sustaining the injuries complained of. At the close of the testimony on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the ground that there was no testimony tending to show any negligence on the part of the defendant company. The motion was refused by his honor, Judge Klugh, saying: "The testimony is that the plaintiff made known his wish to the conductor (that is, his wish to get off the train); that the conductor, the agent of the railroad, told him to get off. That tends to show--I don't say it shows--negligence; but it is a question which must go to the jury, whether that was negligence of the company or not." The defendant then introduced its testimony, and after the charge of the circuit judge, which, it seems to us, was entirely correct, and eminently fair to both parties, the case was submitted to the jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $600, and judgment was entered thereon. From this judgment the defendant gave notice of appeal, basing the same upon four exceptions; but as two of them--the second and third--were abandoned, and very properly abandoned, at the hearing, it is only necessary to state and consider the first and fourth exceptions.

The first exception imputes error to the circuit judge in refusing the motion for a nonsuit. This turns upon the question whether there was any evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant company from which the injuries complained of resulted. While it is true that the evidence did not tend to show that the plaintiff was a passenger, and hence that the defendant company owed plaintiff no duty as such, yet it is equally true that the evidence did tend to show that plaintiff went to the train for the purpose of assisting his wife, who was incumbered with heavy baggage, to board the train as a passenger; that the wife needed assistance in boarding the train, and, none being offered or rendered by any of the railroad officials it became necessary for the plaintiff, her husband, to render the assistance necessary; that for this purpose he took his wife's heavy valise, and went up the steps of the second-class car, for which his wife had a ticket; that as soon as he reached the platform he felt the train moving, and called to his wife to take the valise, so as to let him get off the train; that she took the valise, and the plaintiff went down the steps as quick as he could, saying to the conductor, who was standing on the front steps of the first-class car, that he wanted to get off, when the conductor told him to get off while the train was in motion; and that in doing so he fell or was thrown to the ground, whereby he sustained the injuries complained of. It is not, and cannot be, denied that such was the purport of the testimony on the part of the plaintiff, which was, of course, the only testimony before the court when the motion for a nonsuit was made. The question, then, is, did this testimony tend to show negligence on the part of the defendant. This depends upon the inquiry whether the defendant company owed the plaintiff any duty, and, if so, what, under the circumstances. There can be no doubt that a female holding a ticket entitling her to transportation as a passenger on a railroad train, if...