Metropolitan Transit System, Inc. v. Burton, 38624

• Decision Date: 20 April 1961
• Docket Number: No. 38624,Nos. 1,3,2,38624,s. 1
• Citation: 103 Ga.App. 688,120 S.E.2d 663
• Parties: METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC. v. Carmen BURTON
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 663

120 S.E.2d 663

103 Ga.App. 688

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC. v. Carmen BURTON.

No. 38624.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division Nos. 1, 2, 3.

April 20, 1961.

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1961.

Syllabus by the Court

The plaintiff's petition seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained when she (a passenger on a bus operated by the defendant common carrier) was knocked to the floor and trampled upon by other passengers was not subject to demurrer where it alleged that the plaintiff was so injured by a crowd of passengers entering the bus under direction of an employee agent of the defendant.

Carmen Burton sued the Metropolitan Transit System, Inc., to recover damages for injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of the defendant. The petition alleged in part as follows: '(3) That the defendant herein is a common carrier operating passenger motor buses and trolleys over designated routes upon the public streets of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, soliciting and inviting the general public, for a fixed price, to avail themselves of its transportation services. (4) That on May 29, 1959, at or about 8:30 a. m., your petitioner boarded defendant's bus designated 'Howell Mill-Argonne' for the purpose of being transported to or near her place of employment. (5) That the defendant corporation owed to your petitioner the duty of extraordinary care while she was a passenger on said bus, from the time she boarded until she was safely off at her stop. (6) That your petitioner had awaited the arrival of the bus at a regularly designated bus stop at the intersection of Broad and Walton Streets in the City of Atlanta, Georgia. (7) That upon the arrival of the bus your petitioner was directed by an agent employee of defendant, who was at that time and place dressed in the regular uniform of the defendant company and acting in behalf of the defendant in the furtherance of defendant's business and within the scope of his employment, to board the bus at the door located at a point just rear of the center of said bus, and which door is customarily and regularly designated by the defendant as an exit rather than entrance to the bus. (8) That there were many people at said bus stop awaiting the arrival of said bus, and the agent-employee of the defendant company there and then directed the crowd to enter the bus by the rear door. (9) That petitioner acting upon the instruction and direction of the agent-employee of defendant proceeded to enter and mounted the steps of the bus. (10) That as your petitioner was thus engaged in entering said vehicle, she was pushed and jostled from the rear with such force by the influx of other passengers attempting to enter the bus from the rear door that she was knocked to the floor thereof. (11) That while your petitioner was prone and helpless upon the floor of the bus, she was trampled and stepped upon by the influx of other passengers and suffered severe and crippling injuries as will be more fully set forth hereinafter. (19) That all of the injuries of which complaint is made herein are a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the defendant, its agents and employees, as will hereinafter be more specifically set forth. (20) That the defendant was negligent in the following particulars: (a) In failing to provide a safe means of boarding the bus. (b) In failing to load the bus in a reasonably prudent manner so as to avoid pushing and shoving by passengers boarding same. (c) In failing to organize and regulate the passengers boarding the bus so as to aboid pushing and shoving by passengers boarding same. (d) In failing to restrain the passengers from entering the bus and trampling and walking upon petitioner. (e) In failing to use extraordinary care for the safety of a passenger. (f) In causing the damages which your petitioner sustained at said time and place.' The allegations of the petition as to the plaintiff's injuries and damages as well as the prayer of the petition, not being material to a determination of the case, have not been quoted. The defendant demurred generally to the petition and in separate demurrers demurred specially to each subparagraph of paragraph 20 contending that such allegations of negligence were conclusions unsupported by the pleaded facts. The trial court overruled the general and special demurrers to the petition and the defendant now excepts to such judgment adverse to it.

Jule W. Felton, Jr., Hugh M. Dorsey, Jr., Charles R. Adams, Jr., Crenshaw, Hansell, Ware, Brandon & Dorsey, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Harold H. Clokey, Jr., Sidney I. Rose, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

NICHOLS, Judge.

In support of its contentions the defendant contends that the allegations of the petition fail to allege any actionable negligence because it was not alleged that the defendant had control of the 'loading area' and because it was not alleged that the defendant had reason to anticipate the unruly conduct of other passengers.

In support of such contentions the defendant cites cases wherein the injuries occurred on sidewalks or street not under the control of the defendant and cases where the defendant had no reason to anticipate that the crowd was disorderly or violent. Such cases do not apply to the facts in the present case.

The allegations in the present case show that the defendant had, in addition to the operator of the bus, a uniformed agent employee on duty at the corner where the plaintiff boarded the bus, that such agent employee directed the plaintiff and others waiting on such bus to enter the same by the rear door, that under such instructions 'the plaintiff proceeded to enter and mounted the steps of the bus' and while entering the bus was pushed from the rear by other passengers, knocked to the floor of the bus, and then trampled and stepped upon by other passengers.

After the plaintiff entered the bus by ascending the steps of such bus she was on premises controlled by the defendant so that cases dealing with injuries upon sidewalks and streets are not applicable. The defendant owed the plaintiff the duty of exercising extraordinary care for her safety from the time she boarded such bus and not just when such bus was in motion. See Georgia Ry. & Power Company v. Murphy, 28 Ga.App. 173, 110 S.E. 680, where it was said: 'It is the duty of a street-railway company to use extraordinary diligence to afford protection to passengers from any injury which might reasonably be anticipated as arising from outside sources. Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co. v. Boyle, 115 Ga. 836, 42 S.E. 242, 59 L.R.A. 104; Holly v. Atlanta Street Railroad, 61 Ga. 215, 34 Am.Rep. 97; Hillman v. Ga. Railroad &c. Co., 126 Ga. 814, 56 S.E. 68, 8 Ann.Cas. 222. Where the servants of the company in charge of a car carrying passengers have knowledge that a crowd of persons daily assemble at a certain time near the terminus of the line for the purpose of becoming passengers on the returning cars of the company, and that such persons stampede to board the cars before the cars reach the terminus, and overcrowd the entrances to the cars, and struggle and push against one another in their efforts to enter the cars, the servants of the company in charge of the car, have from such knowledge, reason to anticipate that a female passenger on the car, having no knowledge of such custom, who has arisen from her seat and gone upon the platform for the purpose of alighting, will be injured by the crowd attempting to board the car in the customary manner, and where the servants fail to use the required diligence to protect her, and she is, as a result of such failure, injured by the crowd when struggling and fighting to board the car, the company has failed to afford her the protection to which she is legally entitled.' This court cannot say, as a matter of law, that the failure to take any action to protect the plaintiff either from being pushed to the floor of the bus or to protect her from being stepped on after being pushed down was not a lack of extraordinary care. The petition was not subject to general demurrer and the allegations of negligence, demurred to as...