Richmond-Ashland Ry. Co. v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 14 January 1932
• Citation: 157 Va. 628
• Parties: RICHMOND-ASHLAND RAILWAY COMPANY v. CLARA L. JACKSON.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 628

157 Va. 628

RICHMOND-ASHLAND RAILWAY COMPANY v. CLARA L. JACKSON.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.

January 14, 1932.

Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Epes and Browning, JJ.

1. STREET RAILWAYS — Action by Passenger for Injuries Caused by Sudden Jolt of Car — Evidence Held Sufficient to Support Verdict for Plaintiff — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an action by a passenger against an interurban railway for injuries sustained when she was thrown from a car by a sudden jolt. The evidence was conflicting but there was a verdict for plaintiff sustained by the trial judge.

Held: That the Supreme Court of Appeals must sustain the judgment for plaintiff if the verdict was supported by substantial evidence, and that it was so supported.

2. STREET RAILWAYS — Action by Passenger for Injuries Caused by Sudden Jolt of Car — Liability of Street Railway — Questions of Law and Fact. — Certainly a railway is not to be held liable because its cars stop with some jerk. They usually do, but it is equally certain that they should not be run so rapidly and stopped so suddenly as to break the hold of passengers on supports provided to steady them and to throw them violently to the ground. Just where the line is to be drawn must, when there is any real conflict of evidence, of necessity, be left to the jury.

3. STREET RAILWAYS — Action by Passenger for Injuries Caused by Sudden Jolt of Car — Jolt Must Have Been an Unusual One — Presumption of Negligence. — It is generally held that a passenger makes out a prima facie case, or raises a presumption of negligence, against the carrier, by showing that, while riding in the vehicle, he was injured by its unusual or violent jerking, jolting, or stopping. But before there is any presumption of negligence plaintiff must prove that the jar or jolt was unusual. Some jolting is to be expected, and it is only when this jolting or jerking is so unusual that a person of ordinary prudence could not have anticipated it that negligence jis to be presumed.

4. MOTIONS — Motion for Judgment — Negligence — Detailed Description of Matters which go to make up Negligence. — In motions for judgment meticulous exactness and detailed description of matters which go to make up negligence are not required. If there is any real uncertainty in their statement of what is claimed, that can be cured by a bill of particulars.

5. STREET RAILWAYS — Action by Passenger for Injuries Caused by Sudden Jolt of Car — Pleading — Negligence of Brakeman in Applying Brakes. — In the instant case, an action for injuries by a passenger against an interurban railway company, defendant contended that there was no allegation in plaintiff's motion for judgment that plaintiff's employee carelessly applied the brakes. The motion alleged that the defendant failed to equip its car with proper brakes and to operate and manage it with care and caution.

Held: That this was equivalent to an allegation of negligence in applying the brakes.

6. STREET RAILWAYS — Action by Passenger for Injuries Caused by Sudden Jolt of Car — Instructions — Failure to have Brakes in Working Order — Harmless Error. — In the instant case, an action by a passenger against an interurban railway for injuries received when she was thrown from a car of defendant by a sudden jerk, there was no evidence to show that the brakes of the car were out of order. Therefore, an instruction telling the jury that if they believed that the defendant failed to provide proper brakes, or failed to have them in working condition, defendant was guilty of negligence, was erroneous. But the error was harmless, as relief was not asked because the brakes were out of order, but because the car was stopped too suddenly, and the jury could not possibly have misunderstood the issue.

7. STREET RAILWAYS — Action by Passenger for Injuries Caused by Sudden Jolt of Car — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action by a passenger for injuries where an interurban car stopped suddenly and the passenger was thrown through the door to the ground, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could not be applied as a primary proposition. But where at the request of both plaintiff and defendant the court applied the doctrine in the form and manner requested by both, the defendant cannot on appeal complain thereof. It cannot "approbate and reprobate."

8. STREET RAILWAYS — Action by Passenger for Injuries Caused by Sudden Jolt of Car — Carrier's Duty to Guard Safety of Passengers. — The general statement that the safety of passengers should be guarded "as far as human care and foresight will go" has been repeatedly approved by the courts in Virginia.

9. CARRIES OF PASSENGERS — Care Due to Passenger by Carrier — Instructions. — In the instant case, an action by a passenger against a street railway, the court instructed the jury that if the defendant company failed to provide proper brakes, or failed to have the same in such working condition as human care and foresight could have perfected, then defendant was guilty of negligence. The court also instructed the jury that defendant owed "to its passengers the highest degree of care for their safety known to human prudence and foresight, and is liable to the plaintiff for damages for the slightest negligence against which human care, skill and foresight could have foreseen and guarded." Defendant excepted to these instructions as requiring a higher duty towards the passenger than the law requires.

Held: That the instructions are fully sustained by a previous decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals.

10. STREET RAILWAYS — Action by Passenger for Injuries Caused by Sudden Jolt of Car — Utmost Care — Assumption of Risk by Passenger. — Of course passengers assume all risks which are necessarily incidental to their journeys. Utmost care means no more than every care which is practicable by carriers engaged in the transportation of their passengers.

11. MOTIONS — Motion for Judgment — Matters of which Defendant has Equal Knowledge. — Plaintiff is not required in his notice of motion for judgment to furnish information in respect to matters of which the defendant has equal or superior knowledge.

12. STREET RAILWAYS — Action by Passenger for Injuries Caused by Sudden Jolt of Car — Instructions. — In an action by a passenger for injuries caused by the sudden jolt of the car in which she was riding, an instruction which told the jury that it was necessary for plaintiff to prove both that the brakes of the car were bad and that they were negligently operated was properly refused.

13. STREET RAILWAYS — Action by Passenger for Injuries Caused by Sudden Jolt of Car — Conflict of Evidence — Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur. — In the instant case there was sharp conflict of evidence but the jury could not possibly have misunderstood what the issue was. They had to determine whether or not a car was so suddenly stopped as to throw the plaintiff through an open door. That was submitted to them, they have decided it. The defendant has had "one fair trial." The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has as an original proposition little to do with this case. The brakes were in good condition and the evidence shows, circumstantially it is true, just how the accident happened.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of the city of Richmond, in a proceeding by motion for a judgment for damages. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant assigns error.

The opinion states the case.

Bernard C. Syme and Leon M. Bazile, for the plaintiff in error.

Christian & Lamb, for the defendant in error.

HOLT, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Designating the parties as they stood in the trial court the defendant owns and operates an interurban electric line running between Ashland and Richmond, and of course through a part of that city. On November 7, 1929, plaintiff, a colored woman and passenger, boarded one of its cars to go to her home. This was a one-man car, operated by the motorman who sat in what is described as a vestibule, the floor of which was a little below the floor of the car itself. As Lombardy street was reached it stopped to let out some children and as it started up plaintiff indicated her desire to get off at the next station stop which was on DuBois avenue. When that was about a block distant she got up, went forward and stood on the vestibule platform by the door which, looking forward, was on her right, and steadied herself by holding on with her right hand to an upright bar put there for that purpose. In her left she held a small package.

If the plaintiff is to be believed, and manifestly the jury did believe her, she stood by this open car door which had, against the company's rules, been open since leaving Lombardy street. The stop at DuBois street was so unexpectedly sudden that she was precipitated through it and thrown to the ground. She was stunned by the impact of her fall and bruised about her back and shoulders as she rolled upon the ground.

According to the contention of the defendant the car came to a smooth stop and was standing still when she got off. It is suggested that she caught her heel in the car step and was thereby thrown. However her fall was brought about, it is conceded that she was badly hurt. The amount of the verdict is not questioned.

This station platform appeared to have been a rectangular filled in box, twelve or fourteen feet long, made up of sills and across its center at right angles to the car track ran another sill on which she fell. In her evidence, she said:

"Q. How far were you thrown from the car before your body stopped rolling, or did it roll at all?

"A. You see, it was so sudden. The platform is as wide as from here to that gentleman's foot. The bar is in the center. I was thrown on that heavy sill; that is where I got those severe cuts, one here and one here."

Elsewhere, "I rolled over."

A witness, Grace Cogbill, said this car was running at a rapid rate of speed. The brakeman said...