Schwartz v. New Orleans & C. R. Co
| Decision Date | 17 November 1902 |
| Docket Number | 14,128 |
| Citation | 34 So. 667,110 La. 534 |
| Parties | SCHWARTZ v. NEW ORLEANS & C. R. CO |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Considered.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Thomas C. W Ellis, Judge.
Action by Joseph Schwartz against the New Orleans & Carrollton Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
McCloskey & Benedict, for appellant.
Dart & Kernan, for appellee.
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment rejecting his demand for damages for personal injuries sustained in consequence of becoming pinioned or squeezed between two of the cars of defendant company at the intersection of Baronne and Canal Streets in the City of New Orleans.
Negligence is charged against defendant for having so constructed its tracks that there is not sufficient space or room at that point between passing cars, when swinging in or out of the curves in the tracks, for a man to stand in safety, or to extricate himself if caught between the cars.
It is averred that this was known to the company, but not within the knowledge of the plaintiff; that in standing in the space between the tracks to allow one car to pass another he had the legal right to presume the company had provided sufficient room to ensure his safety -- the place being a public crossing; and that since the accident was one reasonably to be anticipated by the defendant, its failure to provide against the same constitutes gross negligence.
A supplemental petition charges the motorneer operating one of the cars with negligence as well as want of skill; that he should not have attempted to run his car past where plaintiff was, seeing, as he must have seen, the situation in which plaintiff was placed; that he (the motorman) knew, or should have known, that the body of the car engaging the curve at that point would swing towards the left, where plaintiff was standing with his back against the other car and unable to recede.
The answer is a general denial, with the plea that if the plaintiff was injured as claimed by him it was through his own fault and want of care.
The drawing herewith presented accurately depicts the location of the street railway tracks at the point of intersection between Canal and Baronne streets, and, also, with sufficient accuracy the location of the cars at the time of the accident.
[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]
Looking at the drawing or plat from the southward, the car on the left had just turned into Baronne street from Canal and was either stationary at the time of the accident or was moving up Baronne (which is towards the south) very slowly.
The car on the right had just come down Baronne and had turned into the curve on its way to the neutral ground on Canal street, thence towards the river. It, too, was running very slowly.
It will be observed the car coming into Baronne had emerged from the curve and was on the straight track, while that going into Canal had passed out of the straight track on which it had been running and had entered the curve.
The tracks on Baronne street are parallel and four feet apart, but as they pass out of the foot of Baronne street into Canal street the curvature of the track on the right is sharper and shorter, so that it falls away from the other track, and the two do not again become parallel until the neutral ground of Canal street is reached, where one of the tracks extends along one side of it and the other along the other side of it. The parallel there is a wide one.
The track on the right begins its curve in Baronne street just before passing out into Canal street, while the one on the left passes into Canal street before beginning to curve.
The result of this is that whereas the tracks are four feet apart where the curvature of the one on the right begins, the space rapidly widens as it (the track on the right) turns away to the near side of the neutral ground on Canal street, leaving the track on the left to describe a more gradual curvature to the far side of the neutral ground.
The track on the right is the one that cars coming down Baronne street and which go along Canal street towards the river use, while the one on the left is used by cars coming back from the river along Canal street and thence up Baronne street.
In the forenoon of the day of the accident the plaintiff was walking along the banquette of Canal street going in the direction of the river. Reaching Baronne street at its intersection with Canal, he observed three cars coming along the curve of the track nearest to him on their way up Baronne street. They were near together and he waited for two of them to pass, and then stepped...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Schwartz v. New Orleans & C. R. Co
-
Suburban Market Co. v. Board of Assessors
... ... Rehearing denied May 14, 1903 ... Appeal ... from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; John St. Paul, ... Action ... by the Suburban Market Company, Limited, against the board of ... assessors and others. Judgment for ... ...