McMichael v. Illinois Cent. R. Co
| Decision Date | 30 March 1903 |
| Docket Number | 14,683 |
| Citation | 110 La. 18,34 So. 110 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | McMICHAEL v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO |
Appeal from Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Robert R Reid, Judge.
Action by Ella McMichael against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
Hunter C. Leake and Bolivar E. Kemp, for appellant.
Milton Alexander Strickland and William H. McClendon, for appellee.
Statement of the Case.
Plaintiff owing to personal injuries received in a fall, while leaving defendant's train at Amite City, sued for damages in the sum of $ 2,500.
The questions are of fact, and render it necessary to carefully read the testimony of each witness, and to weigh and compare all the incidents attending the fall.
Plaintiff avers, in substance, that she was a passenger of the Illinois Central Railroad Company from New Orleans to Amite, due at Amite at 9:30 p. m.; that before arriving at Amite City she requested the porter to assist her in alighting from the train on its arrival at Amite City; that on approaching the depot the porter came, in accordance with her request, took her baggage, and walked toward the platform, plaintiff following; that before she could descend the car steps she was, by a sudden forward movement or jerk, violently thrown to the ground, and thereby she became unconscious, and remained in a condition of unconsciousness until the afternoon of the following day. Her head was severely cut and injured, the cut leaving a permanent scar. Her arm was badly torn and bruised. She was confined to her room, and required the services of a physician for a week. She suffered bodily pain and mental anguish.
As well here state that there is no dispute regarding the personal injuries sustained. They were as alleged by plaintiff.
The defense sets up negligence, carelessness, and inattention, and alleges that she alone was at fault for the fall.
Plaintiff is a graduate of a female college; has been teaching for 20 years; is an intelligent witness in her own behalf. She has traveled on railroads, and has some knowledge of their movements. She swears that she had a heavily packed valise one pasteboard box about a foot square, and two small curtain poles about one inch in diameter and about five feet in length; and that she told the porter to see that her baggage was taken off, which he did. That she took up the two curtain poles. The train stopped. She went to the door, turned to go down the steps (she was facing the east coming down the steps), and at that moment the train pulled up or jerked, and she was thrown down, and rendered unconscious, as before stated. She was wounded on the left side, and holes were cut through the left sleeve of her dress. She thought that the train was not in motion when she stepped from the door to the platform just prior to alighting. She did not step on the platform, but walked down the steps, and she was just in the act of stepping from the platform to the first step, recalling the incidents as well as she could. She had not reached the bottom step. The train moved -- jerked -- and she fell.
Plaintiff says that she well knew the danger of alighting from a moving train, and that she did not attempt to alight while the train was in motion. The witness positively says, "The train was not moving when I left the coach and passed to the platform." Witness also states that she occupied, while in the train, the third or fourth seat from the north end of the east side.
A witness for plaintiff (Tate) testified that he picked up plaintiff's pocketbook and gloves near where she fell. It seemed to this witness that some one had placed the box and valise of plaintiff near the place where she fell, one near the other; not as they would have been had they fallen down at the place. He noticed "some rods or something lying on the top of the valise."
The pasteboard box was untied at the time of the accident, it was found untied as plaintiff swore it was, and none of its contents were missing. Plaintiff also swore that she had her pocketbook in her hand, and her gloves, on leaving the car.
We infer from the testimony of this witness that plaintiff fell some distance before the train arrived at the stopping place.
The contradiction between the testimony for defendant and that for plaintiff is irreconcilably conflicting. We can only say that some one is woefully mistaken. All the witnesses for the defendant substantially agree in stating that the car was in motion at the time.
G. W. Andrews, of Summit, Miss., a passenger, in answer to preliminary questions propounded, said that he follows a trade, and that his family consisted of six children; that, although the lady was a stranger to him, he was moved to suggest to her, because of the danger, not to go out on the platform; that there would be plenty of time to get off when the train would stop; that he placed his hand on the door, near which he was sitting, in front, to keep her from going out; that, as she insisted upon passing, he withdrew his hand from the door; that the train made only one stop; that she carried a few parcels in her hands; that there was no unusual jerk of the train; that no porter was assisting in carrying her parcels; and that there was nothing done by the trainmen to lead a person to believe that it was the proper time to leave the coach; and that he saw no occasion for this passenger to leave the coach.
A Mr. H. T. Waterer, of Lexington, Miss., a farmer, and who occasionally ships cattle, was another passenger. He corroborates this statement in every particular, mentioning that he and Mr. Weiner, an attorney at law, who has had 18 years' experience as a practitioner at law (he is local counsel of defendant's road), of Durant, Miss., were sitting near at the time, and heard the witness say: that the train was in motion, and that it made only one stop; noticed no jolt, jerk, or lurch of the train.
Mr. Weiner, above referred to, testified that he was a passenger on the night in question, and the car which he and the lady who is the plaintiff occupied was very much crowded; that she seemed to move with difficulty, owing to the parcels she carried; that his intention was to assist her, as he realized the danger to which she was exposing herself in stepping on the platform while the car was in motion. He does not know that she noticed him. To quote from the testimony, "But her act was such as to deter me from making any further move;" that she "appeared to be rather impatient or nervous"; that Mr. Waterer, near him, exclaimed, "Why, she is all right; she has already gotten off;" and that the train was still in motion when he made the remark. He did not see any porter about at the time, and that no train hand left the coach in advance of the plaintiff. He observed no jerk of the train. "I knew that the train was moving too fast for passengers with baggage to go out on the platform." In answer, on cross-examination, he said that he was actuated at the time by a feeling which is always interpreted as one which elevates humanity. He said, "A man hardly knows what his motives are at the time of an accident of this kind."
Mr. S. E. Willis, of Clinton, Miss., who swore that he was a minister of the gospel, occupied at the time in teaching, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Worthington
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Rush
... ... 519; St. Louis, I. M ... & S. Ry. Co. v. Leamons, 82 Ark. 504, 102 ... S.W. 363; Ark. Cent. Rd. Co. v. Bennett, 82 ... Ark. 393, 102 S.W. 198 ... It was ... therefore ... ...
-
Wright v. Petty
... ... witnesses to the contrary of the theory upon these physical ... facts." McMichael vs. I. C. R. R. Co., 110 La ... 18, 34 So. 110 ... For ... these reasons, we think ... normal as before the accident; he has a five per cent off ... vision; there is evidence of the separation of the iris fibre ... and there is also ... ...