Mannon v. Camden Interstate Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1904 |
| Citation | 49 S.E. 450,56 W.Va. 554 |
| Parties | MANNON v. CAMDEN INTERSTATE RY. CO. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted June 3, 1904
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Street railway companies, for the protection of their passengers, are bound to exercise extraordinary care, and the utmost skill, diligence, and human foresight, in keeping in repair the necessary appliances used by them in the transportation of such passengers, and the slightest negligence on their part renders them liable for all accidents to such passengers occasioned thereby.
2. The frequent breaking of a trolley wire at or near a given point is evidence to justify a jury in finding such a company negligent in discharging the duties it owes to the public and its passengers.
3. Whether a passenger acted with ordinary prudence in leaping from a car in motion, or from a rash apprehension of danger which did not exist, under circumstances of age, time place, experience, and other facts, about which reasonable men might differ as a justification for such conduct, is a question of fact for a jury, and not a question of law for the court.
4. Judgment of the circuit court overruling a demurrer to evidence will be affirmed unless it is contrary to the plain preponderance of the evidence, or it is without evidence to support it as to some material question at issue.
Error to Circuit Court, Cabell County; E. S. Doolittle, Judge.
Action by Charles Mannon against the Camden Interstate Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Vinson & Thompson, for plaintiff in error.
Neal & Null and Campbell, Holt & Duncan, for defendant in error.
The Camden Interstate Railway Company complains of a judgment against it in favor of Charles Mannon, rendered by the circuit court of Cabell county on the 27th day of March 1902, for the sum of $1,500, damages occasioned by an accident.
On the 12th day of September, 1901, Charles Mannon, the plaintiff an unsophisticated country boy from the state of Ohio boarded an open car on the defendants' street railway line extending from the city of Huntington to the town of Guyandotte. While the car was running at a rapid rate, the trolley wire, which had been in use since 1893, and which had broken quite a number of times near the same spot, parted, and made considerable noise, causing the wires to rattle, and one of the poles, rotten near the ground, to break off and fall over against the wires. The boy became excited and alarmed along with the other passengers, and before the car could be stopped, being apprehensive of danger, leaped from the car, broke his leg, and tore the ligaments of his ankle, so that he became permanently injured for life. The defendant demurred to the evidence, and the jury found a verdict for $2,500. The defendant moved to set it aside as excessive, but the court, having determined the demurrer to the evidence in favor of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff having released $1,000 of the verdict, entered judgment against the defendant for $1,500, following the case of Ohio R. R. Co. v. Blake, 38 W.Va. 718, 18 S.E. 957. It is sufficient to say with regard to this matter that $1,500 is not excessive, considering the nature and character of the injury received, and that the plaintiff is maimed and disfigured for life. It is doubtful whether $2,500 could be considered an excessive verdict as a matter of compensation in consideration of the character of the injury received by a strong, healthy boy 18 years of age.
There are really only two questions of importance that are presented by the record in this case: First, was the defendant guilty of negligence? Second, was there such apparent danger as justified the plaintiff leaping from the car?
The law on both these questions seems to have been fully considered and settled. They are primarily jury questions, and, if the evidence in relation thereto is sufficient to sustain the verdict of a jury, this court is bound to affirm the judgment overruling the demurrer.
As to the first of these questions, the defendant is in duty bound to the public, from which it enjoys its franchise and fares to exercise the utmost diligence possible to secure the safe transportation of its passengers, of all ages, character, disposition, and information. To this end it must furnish appliances of the most...
To continue reading
Request your trial