Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Quick

• Decision Date: 17 April 1900
• Citation: 28 So. 14,125 Ala. 553
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. QUICK.

28 So. 14

125 Ala. 553

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. QUICK.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 17, 1900

Appeal from city court of Birmingham; William W. Wilkerson, Judge.

Action by Malinda Quick against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

This action was brought by the appellee, Malinda Quick, against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, to recover damages for defendant's carrying her beyond her place of destination. The complaint contained two counts. In the first count it was averred that the plaintiff who was very old and infirm and not accustomed to travel on railroad trains, and was not familiar with the way in which passengers were informed about disembarking from trains on railroads, took passage on one of the defendant's trains, with a ticket for Birmingham as her place of destination; that she told the conductor in charge of the train that she wished to get off at Birmingham and informed said conductor that she was old and infirm and not acquainted with the ways of travel on railroad trains; that said conductor told her to remain on the car in which she was riding, and that on its arrival at Birmingham he would inform her of the fact and assist her to alight from the train; that upon the train arriving at Birmingham, the conductor wholly failed to inform her that she had reached her place of destination, and that she did not know until after her train had left Birmingham that that was the place where she wished to get off; that after being carried past Birmingham, she was put off of said train at Warrior, a station on the line of defendant's road, and in obedience to directions she waited there until the train going south to Birmingham reached said station, and then took passage upon said train; that upon being informed by a passenger that she was at Birmingham, she disembarked from said train. The first count then continued in its averments as follows: "In the meantime, her son, who had met the train upon which she had first come to Birmingham, not seeing her in the depot or alight from said train, had returned home. She did not know where her son lived, and after remaining in the depot at Birmingham for quite a while, she was put into a hack or other vehicle by a stranger and the driver told to carry her until he could find her son's home. The weather was exceedingly cold and wet, and she was driven a long distance, and wandered from place to place in the city of Birmingham, and never reached her son's home until about dark. In going to his house she became thoroughly drenched with rain. After she found that she had left Birmingham, she was very much frightened and was very anxious and suffered a great deal of mental worry and anxiety and continued to suffer from anxiety and worry until she reached the home of her said son. On account of her exposure to the cold and rain she was made sick and contracted rheumatism and other ailments from which she has continued to suffer up to this time. She has had to spend money in attempting to effect a cure of her ailment and suffered a great deal of pain and anxiety, and has been permanently diseased because of the facts aforesaid."

The second count was in substance the same as the first in its prefatory averments, except that it averred that the plaintiff informed the conductor that she was exceedingly old, infirm and deaf, and also informed the conductor that her son would meet her at the depot in Birmingham, and that she was wholly without money or means, and after finding that she had passed Birmingham, she became greatly worried and frightened. After making such prefatory averments, the second count then continued as follows: "She did not know where he [her son] resided, and she was at the depot without money or means, and suffered great anxiety not being able to learn where he lived and having no means with which to hire a conveyance to carry her to his home. After wandering about the depot for a while, a stranger, seeing her great distress hired a vehicle for her and told the driver to carry her to her son's if his home could be found, and if not to return her to the depot; she got into the conveyance provided for her by the said stranger and traveled for a long while and until night hunting for the home of her said son. The weather was exceedingly cold and disagreeable, and before reaching the home of her son a heavy rain fell in which she was thoroughly drenched and made wet. She has suffered great mental anguish and anxiety and by reason of the exposure and worry she was made sick and contracted rheumatism and other ailments by which she has been afflicted ever since, and from which she has greatly suffered and has been permanently injured, and has spent considerable sums of money for nursing, medicines and medical attendance in attempting to effect a cure of her said ailments."

The defendant moved to strike from the first and second counts respectively, the averments which are quoted above, upon the grounds that the matters alleged in said parts of each of said counts were irrelevant and immaterial, and that the damages sought to be recovered from the facts alleged therein were remote and not proximate damages. This motion was overruled, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and by special pleas the contributory negligence of the plaintiffs. The trial was had upon issue joined upon these pleas.

The evidence for the plaintiff showed that she was an old lady about 78 years of age, and she boarded the train at Careyville, Fla., a point about 100 miles east of Pensacola and for her destination had Birmingham, Ala. That upon getting to Pensacola junction, she took passage in a car on the defendant's road where she remained until she got off by the direction of the conductor at Warrior, Ala. The plaintiff, as a witness in her own behalf, testified that at Pensacola junction, the conductor put her on the Louisville &amp Nashville train, which runs thence through Montgomery and Birmingham to points north of the latter place, and told the conductor of that train that there was an old lady he desired him to take in charge; that when the latter conductor came to get her ticket, he said, "You want to Birmingham, do you?" and plaintiff told him, "Yes;" when the conductor said to her: "Stay right here, it matters not who gets on, or who gets off," and plaintiff said "I will be here when you come; I will stay here," to which the conductor replied, "All right." She testified that the conductor did not say he was coming, he only said "All right," and this happened, as she stated, a short while after they left Pensacola junction.

The evidence shows, without conflict, that the conductor on the defendant train, which brought the plaintiff to Montgomery did not go further and have charge of the train, beyond the latter point, but that there was a change of conductors at that point; and another and different conductor from the one that brought the train into Montgomery took charge of and carried the train on to Birmingham and Nashville, and there is no evidence that the conductor from Flomaton to Montgomery ever communicated anything that passed between him and the plaintiff to the conductor who had charged of the train from Montgomery to Birmingham.

G. M Adams was the conductor from the latter point to Nashville. He testified that he took charge of the train at Montgomery, and the other evidence was to the same effect; that the train was on time and they reached Birmingham at 12:01 and left at 12:25, having remained there 24 minutes; that there was nothing to prevent the plaintiff from getting off the train at Birmingham, while it was standing there under the shed; that as they approached Birmingham the flagman called out, "Birmingham, plenty of time for dinner," in a tone of voice loud enough to be heard distinctly all over the coach; that he did not know the plaintiff was deaf, as she did not tell him she was, nor did she tell him that her son was expected to meet her at the depot; that she did not ask him to inform her when they reached Birmingham, nor to aid her in getting off, or give her any information; that he discovered, after leaving Birmingham, by being so told by the flagman, that the plaintiff was on the train, when he told her that he could not put her off before reaching. Warrior, so as she could be properly taken care of, as it was raining very hard, and when they reached Warrior he put her off with instructions for her to be sent back to Birmingham on the down train, which was due then at 2:20, and this was done, carrying her to the latter place at 3:40. The evidence for the plaintiff further tended to show that upon the day she arrived at Birmingham she telegraphed her son of her expected arrival and asked him to meet her at the station; that in response to said telegram her son was at the depot in Birmingham waiting for her, but according to the rules and...