Madden v. Port Royal & W.C. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1892
• Citation: 14 S.E. 713,35 S.C. 381
• Parties: MADDEN v. PORT ROYAL & W. C. RY. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

14 S.E. 713

35 S.C. 381

MADDEN v. PORT ROYAL & W. C. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 2, 1892

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Laurens county; HUDSON Judge.

Action by Dora Madden against the Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway Company for personal injuries. Defendant's demurrer to the complaint overruled. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Joseph Ganahl and Simpson & Barksdale, for appellant.

Q. C Watts, Westmoreland & Haynsworth, and F. P. McGowan, for respondent.

MCIVER C.J.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether the circuit judge erred in overruling the demurrer based upon the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Looking into the complaint for the purpose of determining this question, we find that the plaintiff was a passenger on defendant's train, and that her destination was High Point, in the county of Laurens, S C., where she alleges she received injuries in getting off the train, by reason of defendant's negligence, and she brings this action to recover damages for the injuries thus sustained. The allegations which are demurred to as insufficient to state any cause of action are those contained in the 4th, 5th, and 6th paragraphs of the complaint, which read as follows: "(4) That it was the duty of the defendant common carrier to have a suitable stopping place at the station at High Point, and to provide a foot-stool at the steps of said car for the use of passengers alighting from said train. (5) That at the time aforesaid the defendant, in carrying the said plaintiff as a passenger, negligently failed to stop its train at the usual stopping place at High Point, but stopped some distance from said usual stopping place, at a point where the distance from the steps of said train to the ground was considerable, and unsafe; the said defendant well knowing that the said plaintiff was a lady in delicate health, and that it was dangerous for said plaintiff to alight from the train without the use of the footstool which was not provided for her, although it was the duty and custom of the defendant so to provide. (6) That, in consequence of the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid and in consequence of said train stopping only a very short time, the plaintiff, at said time and place, in alighting from said train, was compelled to jump from said train to the ground, and in so doing was much injured in her person by the displacement of her womb." To sustain an action like this it is necessary for the plaintiff to allege and prove that she has been injured in her person by the negligence of the defendant; the cause of action being the negligence of the defendant, whether of omission or commission, followed by some injury resulting therefrom. There being no question that the fact of injury is sufficiently alleged in the complaint, the only inquiry is whether the other element in the cause of action--the negligence of the defendant causing the injury--has like wise been sufficiently alleged. Negligence being a mixed...