Proud v. Philadelphia & R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1900
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: PROUD et ux. v. PHILADELPHIA & R.R. CO.

46 A. 710

64 N.J.L. 702

PROUD et ux.

v. PHILADELPHIA & R.R. CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 18, 1900.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to supreme court

Action by George S. Proud and Mary E. Proud, his wife, against the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

J. W. Morgan and S. H. Grey, for plaintiff in error. Howard Carrow, for defendants in error.

ADAMS, J.The plaintiffs, George S. Proud and Mary E. Proud, his wife, brought suit to recover their damages resulting from an injury received by the wife. On the night of March 8, 1899, Mrs. Proud took the defendant's 10:38 train at the Reading Terminal, in the city of Philadelphia, to go to the Huntingdon street station, in the same city. Two other ladies and a gentleman (a Mr. Springer) were in the party. The first station after leaving the Terminal is at Spring Garden street; the second, at Columbia avenue; the third, at Huntingdon street. The regular running time from the Terminal to the Huntingdon street station was 11 minutes. The distance is from two to three miles. When the train had stopped at her destination, Mrs. Proud attempted to alight. As she was about to step down to the upper step from the front platform of the car in which she had ridden, Mr. Springer, who had preceded her, and was standing on the station platform, said "Look out, Mrs. Proud!" At that instant she slipped on some vomit with which the steps were covered, and which Mr. Springer had just detected and was trying to warn her against fell, and was badly hurt. The offensive matter was not frozen, though the night was cold, which tended to show that it had been recently deposited. The platform at that place was neither very dark nor very light. Mrs. Proud, being asked, "Was the station light or dark?" answered: "I cannot remember. I do not think it is so very light there, but it was not light enough for me to see what was on the steps." Mrs. Willetta Fitzgerald, one of the party, who immediately followed Mrs. I'roud, and slipped and nearly fell herself, said: "It seemed quite dark to me, coming out. of a lighted car." Miss Frances Smith, another of the party, said: "It was a little dark. I could just see something on the steps." Mr. Springer said: "I got off the car, and when I turned round to assist Mrs. Proud off I saw there was something on the first step below the platform of the car. * * * The car, to the best of my knowledge and belief, stopped just in between two electric lights. The station is lighted by these,—either lamps or incandescents. I don't know which. But the car was just in between these two lights, and it was quite dark right at that point." It appeared, also, that at the moment of the accident, or almost immediately after it, the conductor was standing on the rear platform of the car next in front of that from which Mrs. Proud fell. The declaration alleges that the defendant "carelessly and negligently permitted filth and vomit to remain on the platform and steps of the car in which said Mary E. Proud was a passenger," and that this occasioned her injury. At the close of the plaintiffs' case the defendant asked the trial judge to direct a verdict for the defendant. This motion was denied, and exception taken. At the close of the whole case the motion was renewed, and again denied, and exception taken. The plaintiffs recovered separate verdicts. Error has been assigned on the exceptions.

The motions to direct a verdict presented to the trial judge the question whether, from the facts in proof, the jury could attribute negligence to the defendant. What, then, were the facts that bore on this question? It appears that the cars that composed this train came into the Terminal at 10:14 p. m., and that they went out at 10:38, as before mentioned. In this Interval of 24 minutes, after the incoming passengers were discharged and before the outgoing passengers were admitted, it was the duty of the car cleaners to inspect the train, and see to it that it was in good order. Two witnesses were called on behalf of the defendant to prove that this duty was performed,—Charles Stuart Kelso, night foreman of car cleaners at the Reading Terminal, and Nicholas Blanch, a car cleaner employed at the same station. Kelso testified that he had charge of the cleaning of the platforms of the cars and of the 10:38 train on the night of March 8, 1809,...