Pere Marquette Railroad Company v. Strange
| Decision Date | 26 May 1908 |
| Docket Number | 21,234 |
| Citation | 84 N.E. 819,171 Ind. 160 |
| Parties | Pere Marquette Railroad Company v. Strange |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied November 18, 1908, Reported at: 171 Ind. 160 at 173.
From Laporte Circuit Court; John C. Richter, Judge.
Action by Jeter G. Strange against the Pere Marquette Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Appealed from Appellate Court under clause 3, § 1394 Burns 1908, Acts 1901, p. 565, § 10.
Reversed.
John B Elam, James W. Fesler and Harvey J. Elam, for appellant.
Frank E. Osborn, W. A. McVey and Theron F. Miller, for appellee.
Appellee recovered a judgment for $ 10,000 against appellant for personal injuries inflicted through an alleged breach of its duty as a common carrier of passengers. The complaint is in a single paragraph, and the negligence charged against appellant was (1) in failing to light its station grounds properly; (2) in carelessly running its train of cars; (3) in negligently failing to guide and direct appellee. Appellant answered by general denial.
Errors are properly assigned upon the overruling of appellant's motion for judgment upon the answers of the jury to the interrogatories, and in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.
The facts shown by the evidence are substantially as follows: Appellee was a carpenter, twenty-eight years of age, and came from Nashville, Tennessee, to Michigan City, Indiana, on May 13, 1904. He had traveled considerably, both in the daytime and in the night-time, but had never before been in Michigan City. He reached appellant's station by means of an electric car about 11 o'clock p. m., and had with him two trunks, one tool-chest, and two grips. The electric car stopped on the north side of appellant's tracks, and appellee's baggage was unloaded there. The night was windy, cloudy and dark. The railroad station consisted of a combination passenger- and baggage-car, placed south of the tracks, and between the station and the main track there was a switch track. A partition divided the car, and the station agent used the west end of the car as an office, and the east end was used as a waiting-room for passengers. The car was lighted on the inside by two lamps, and there was a signal-light on the outside, on the south side of the car, which cast its rays east and west. Appellee was informed by the street-car conductor that the railroad and depot grounds were new, the station unfinished, and that this car was used as a waiting-room. A stranger pointed out the station car, and leaving his baggage on the north side of the tracks, appellee crossed over and entered at the east end of the car. He was accompanied by a companion, and their train was not due until 1:50 o'clock a. m. Appellee bought two tickets for St. Joseph, Michigan, the agent agreed to look after the checking of the baggage, and promised to awaken appellee when his train arrived. Appellee had been traveling since noon of May 12, rode the night before in a day coach from Louisville, Kentucky, to Monon, Indiana, slept some on the way, but was tired when he reached Michigan City. The agent having promised to wake him when the train arrived, he lay down on a bench and went to sleep. When the train was approaching, the agent awoke him, he spoke to his companion about the grips, and went out of the station car at the east end. The agent, with a white lantern in his hand, went out at the west end of the station car and went upon the platform. A stranger went out of the waiting-room first, appellee's companion next, and appellee last. Appellee knew the night was dark, and that there might be danger, but had asked no one for instructions or directions. The platform was on the south side of the main track, and between the main track and side-track, was 110 feet long and 12 feet wide, made of planks fitted closely together and against the rails, and stood about flush with the top of the rails. The main track and the side-track were ballasted with gravel and sand level with the ties. When appellee got outside the station car he stopped to button his coat, and thus dropped somewhat behind the other two men. He then saw the headlight upon the approaching engine, and started in a northwesterly direction toward the track. He did not see the agent's lantern, but heard a voice say: "Come up this way." The wind was blowing, and he thought the sound of the voice came from the north side of the track. He continued in the direction in which he was traveling. The engine bell was ringing, but he did not hear it, or the noise of the train as it approached, or notice whether the engine had slowed up, stopped, or was moving. He saw the side-track when he passed over it, and when he reached the main track he did not stop, because he heard the agent say "come on," and it sounded as though he was on the opposite side of the track. He did not hear the train, and thought it had stopped, and, as he started to cross the track, he thought the engine was not more than seven feet distant, but perhaps it was ten or twelve feet away. He looked at the engine before he started to cross, but did not look while crossing. He was watching where he stepped, and could see the ground and rails, and when about half way across the main track he was struck by the engine and injured. The engine was equipped with an Edward's electric headlight of 2,000 candle-power, placed in front of a powerful reflector. The light was burning brightly, and was such as to enable one upon the engine to see and distinguish objects from two thousand to three thousand feet away. The track west of the station was straight for nine hundred or one thousand feet, and the rays of the headlight struck the track about nine or ten feet in front of the pilot. When the engine was about a mile west of the station the steam was shut off, and it was running of its own momentum, and at the rate of five or six miles an hour, when appellee was struck. The engineer saw appellee step upon the track, and immediately applied the emergency brake and stopped the train within fifty or sixty feet. The station agent was at no time on the north side of the track, but when he said "come up this way" he was on the platform on the south side of the main track.
Appellant's motion for a new trial alleged that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and was contrary to law, and that the court erred in denying appellant's request for a peremptory instruction.
Appellee's action is founded upon an alleged breach of duty owing to him, in the character of a passenger, from appellant as a common carrier. The relation of carrier and passenger commences when a person, with the good-faith intention of taking passage, with the consent of the carrier, express or implied, assumes a situation to avail himself of the facilities for transportation which the carrier offers. Appellee, having entered upon appellant's premises for the purpose of taking passage on a train in due course, and purchased a ticket entitling him to transportation between designated points, was, while approaching the train upon which he was to be carried and by which he was injured, clearly a passenger. 6 Cyc., 536; Citizens St. R. Co. v. Jolly (1903), 161 Ind. 80, 67 N.E. 935; Freemont, etc., R. Co. v. Hagblad (1904), 72 Neb. 773, 101 N.W. 1033, 106 N.W. 1041, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 254; Exton v. Central R. Co. (1899), 63 N.J.L. 356, 46 A. 1099, 56 L.R.A. 508; Warren v. Fitchburg R. Co. (1861), 8 Allen 227, 85 Am. Dec. 700; Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Rector (1882), 104 Ill. 296; Webster v. Fitchburg R. Co. (1894), 161 Mass. 298, 37 N.E. 165, 24 L.R.A. 521; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Treat (1898), 75 Ill.App. 327; Young v. New York, etc., R. Co. (1898), 171 Mass. 33, 50 N.E. 455, 41 L.R.A. 193; Barth v. Kansas City Elevated R. Co. (1898), 142 Mo. 535, 44 S.W. 778; Warner v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. (1897), 168 U.S. 339, 18 S.Ct. 68, 42 L.Ed. 491; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Holloway (1905), 71 Kan. 1, 80 P. 31, 114 Am. St. 462; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wainwright (1907), 152 F. 624, 82 C. C. A. 16; Lake St. Elevated R. Co. v. Burgess (1903), 200 Ill. 628, 66 N.E. 215; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Walker (1905), 217 Ill. 605, 75 N.E. 520; Haselton v. Portsmouth, etc., R. Co. (1902), 71 N.H. 589, 53 A. 1016; McBride v. Georgia R., etc., Co. (1906), 125 Ga. 515, 54 S.E. 674; Shannon v. Boston, etc., R. Co. (1885), 78 Me. 52, 2 A. 678; Gordon v. Grand St., etc., R. Co. (1863), 40 Barb. 546; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Reynolds (1903), (Ky.), 71 S.W. 516; Birmingham, etc., R. Co. v. Wise (1906), 149 Ala. 492, 42 So. 821.
Appellant does not deny that the relation of passenger had been established before, and existed at, the time of the accident in which appellee was injured, but a sharp conflict is waged as to the measure of appellant's duty to him as such passenger while approaching one of its trains. The common law, for the purpose of determining questions of liability for injury, divided passengers into two classes--(1) those being transported, and (2) those not being transported. The highest practical care and diligence were exacted of the carrier for the safety of passengers of the first class, and in case of injury resulting from defective roadbed, equipment or management, a presumption of the carrier's negligence was indulged by law in favor of the injured person. The carrier was bound only for the exercise of ordinary care with respect to passengers of the second class, and in case of accidental injury no presumption as to negligence existed in favor of either party. The common-law rule has not been rescinded or modified by statute in this State. The propriety and justice of the requirement that a high degree of care be exercised for the security of...
To continue reading
Request your trial