Richmond City Ry. Co v. Scott

• Decision Date: 01 May 1890
• Citation: 11 S.E. 404,86 Va. 902
• Parties: Richmond City Ry. Co. v. Scott.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

11 S.E. 404

86 Va. 902

Richmond City Ry. Co.

v.Scott.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

May 1, 1890.

Accident to Passenger—Alighting prom Car.

1. In an action against a street railway company for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in stepping off defendant's oar, on which he was a passenger, and falling into a ditch made by the city, and along which the car was stopped for plaintiff to alight, a demurrer to the declaration, on the ground that it does not show that the condition of the place was such by reason of the absence of proper safeguards, is properly overruled, since the cause of action arises out of the duty of every carrier of passengers not to expose its passengers to any danger in alighting, and not from such failure to provide safeguards.

2. When a street railway company stops its oar over an excavation made by the city, to allow passengers to alight, and neither warns them of the danger nor assists them to alight, it is liable for injuries sustained by a passenger who steps off the car into the excavation.

Error to circuit court of the city of Richmond.

Wyndham R. Meredith, for plaintiff in error.

W. W. & B. T. Crump, for defendant in error.

Hinton, J. This is an action on the case to recover damages for injuries sustained by a passenger from falling into an excavation while in the act of debarking from a street-car. The defendant company owned and operated a street or horse railway in several of the streets of the city of Richmond. One of its main lines ran on Main street, which is one of the principal thoroughfares in the city; and, in order to connect this line with Hollywood cemetery, which is situated south of Main street, a branch line was run from that street to Hollywood, along Laurel street, the street leading from Main street to the latter place. At the intersection of these two lines at the corner of Main and Laurel streets, the company transferred its passengers reaching that point on its Laurel-Street branch, without additional fare, to its Main-Street cars running up Main street, or to its cars, which, running down Main street, turned off at this corner into Laurel street north of Main, and ran to and down Broad street. At the southwest corner of these streets, Main and Laurel, there was an employe of the company stationed, to see that the passengers desiring to continue their journey on the Broad or Main street lines were properly transferred. At this point the track of the Laurel-Street line ran out into Main street. Here the cars coming from Hollywood were stopped, the horse was attached to the other end, and the cars were then started back on their return trip. On the evening of the injury, namely, on the 20th September, 1888, a ditch or trench existed in Main street, running along the western side of the Laurel-Street track a few inches from the rail, about 12 or 14 feet in length, 15 feet deep, and about 3 feet in width. This ditch or excavation had been made by the city authorities for the purpose of laying a sewer. Its existence, however, was known both to the transfer man of the company and to the driver of the Laurel-Street car, who stopped every 20 or 30 minutes, near enough to it to see it and notice its location. Just after dark, the plaintiff, Mr. Scott, a gentleman 68 years of age, who was on his way to the corner of Fourth and Broad streets, took passage on the Laurel-Street car, coming towards Main street, about three squares south of Main street. He paid his fare, and informed the driver that he was going to transfer to a Broad-Street car. There was only one other passenger on the car. When the car reached its regular stopping place, the corner of Main and Laurel streets, the driver stopped it along-side the excavation, with the step of the car projecting slightly over the edge of the excavation. The transfer man came into the car just at this juncture, and was told by the driver that there were two transfers. The other passenger now arose, and being nearer the door went out first, and alighted on the east side of the car. The transfer man next went out on the platform, and, by swinging himself around the back of the platform to the solid ground in rear of the car, as it was afterwards ascertained, succeeded in alighting on the west side of the car; and then the plaintiff, following the direction taken by the transfer agent, but being ignorant of the excavation, and of the means adopted by the agent to avoid it, went out on the west side of the platform of the car, and, in endeavoring to step from and off the car, was precipitated to the bottom of the excavation, and was thereby seriously and perhaps permanently injured. The jury, evidently regarding the foregoing as the facts established by the evidence in the case, returned a verdict for $3,500, in favor of the plaintiff, upon which judgment was entered by the circuit court.

The company now insists that the circuit court erred in the following particulars, viz.: (1) In overruling its demurrer to the declaration of the plaintiff; (2) in giving certain instructions, and in refusing certain others; and (3) in refusing to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.

In the court below the defendant assigned no reason for the demurrer; but in this court it is argued, and...