Smith v. North Carolina R. Co

Decision Date22 April 1908
Citation147 N.C. 448,61 S.E. 266
PartiesSMITH. v. NORTH CAROLINA R. CO.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
1. Carriers—Carriage of Passengers—Duty to Passenger at Destination.

It is the duty of a carrier to transport passengers to their destination and there afford them reasonable opportunity to alight from the cars and depart from the train yards or depot grounds in safety, and the duty is not performed by stopping before the train reaches the usual place for debarkation, nor by stopping where there are cars on parallel tracks so close together that by the projection of the cars over the rails, passengers, in order to enter or alight from trains, are forced into a crowded passway, where the slightest motion of either train or a rush of the passengers themselves is not unlikely to result in injury.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 9, Carriers, § 1072.]

2. Same—Action fob Injuries—Sufficiency of Evidence.

In an action by a passenger against a carrier for injuries, evidence held sufficient to take the case to the jury.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 9, Carriers, §§ 1315-1325.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Alamance County; Councill, Judge.

Personal injury action by Mary B. Smith, by her next friend, A. F. Smith, against the North Carolina Railroad Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

There was evidence on the part of plaintiff tending to show that on or about June 7, 1900, the plaintiff and her sister were passengers on defendant's train, going from Hillsboro to Mebane, N. C., the last being a schedule stop of the train; that plaintiff entered the second-class car (the train being crowded in the first-class car) in company with her sister, and that she had a ticket to go to Mebane, N. C. The conductor on the train took up her ticket. That when the train stopped at Mebane, where she lived, and where she knew the locality, it did not stop at the place usually used for passengers to alight, but about 50 yards east thereof; that plaintiff, after the train had stopped, got up from the seat, and went with her sister to the platform of the car to alight, when she discovered that box cars were on a side track on the north side, and a train with engine attached was on the south side, of the car in which she had arrived; that the side tracks were close to the track on which was the car she was on—one witness said about six feet between the rails; that no one of the train crew was there to assist her to alight, and that it was not the place to alight, as she was well acquainted with the ground; that passengers are usually received and discharged on the south side of the track where the depot is situated; that when she reached the platform the local train began to move east along by where she stood cm the platform, and that she hesitated to attempt to alight there, and while she was standing there, not over half a minute, the train on which she was began to move slowly toward the station, and that she supposed it was going to pull up to the place to alight, and, instead, it increased in speed, and by jerking threw her and her sister off and injured them. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, on motion made in apt time, a nonsuit was ordered, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.

Long & Long, for appellant.

W. B. Rodman, J. H. Pou, and Parker & Parker, for appellee.

HOKE, J. A common carrier is charged with the duty of carrying passengers to the point of their destination, and there affording them fair and reasonable opportunity to alight from the cars, and depart from the train yards or depot grounds in safety. In Hutchinson on Carriers, § 928, speaking of these obligations, the author...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Kearney v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1912
    ...on the plaintiff's version of his conduct. As was said in Shaw v. Railroad, 143 N.C. 315, 55 S.E. 713, and affirmed in Smith v. Railroad, 147 N.C. 451, 61 S.E. 266, 17 R. A. (N. S.) 179: "The statute in plain terms relieves the company from liability in the case of a passenger injured while......
  • Kearney v. Seabd. Air Line Ry
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1912
    ...a sudden start of the train as he was alighting, this would be negligence. Hutchinson on Carriers, § 1118; Smith v. Railroad, 147 N. C. 450, 61 S. E. 266, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 179. If passengers could leave the train on either side, and one side was more dangerous than the other, it was the ......
  • Swaney v. Peden Steel Co., 523
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1963
    ...139 N.C. 528, 52 S.E. 129; Haynes v. North Carolina R. R., 143 N.C. 154, 55 S.E. 516, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 972; Smith v. North Carolina R. R., 147 N.C. 448, 61 S.E. 266, 17 L.R.A.,N.S., 179; Tisdale v. Union Tanning Co., 185 N.C. 497, 117 S.E. 583; Byers v. Boice Hardwood Co., 201 N.C. 75, 159 S.......
  • Lane v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1926
    ...134 S.E. 855 192 N.C. 287 LANE v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. No. 91.Supreme Court of North CarolinaOctober 13, 1926 ...          Appeal ... from Superior Court, Wayne County; ... Phillips v. Land Co., 174 N.C. 542, 94 S.E. 12; ... Smith v. McGregor, 96 N.C. 111, 1 S.E. 695 ...          Other ... assignments of error, based ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT