South Covington & C. St. Ry. Co. v. Harris

• Decision Date: 13 March 1913
• Citation: 152 Ky. 750,154 S.W. 35
• Parties: SOUTH COVINGTON & C. ST. RY. CO. v. HARRIS.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

154 S.W. 35

152 Ky. 750

SOUTH COVINGTON & C. ST. RY. CO. v. HARRIS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 13, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenton County, Criminal, Common-Law, and Equity Division.

Action by Anna Belle Harris against the South Covington & Cincinnati Street Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Robert C. Simmons, of Covington, for appellant.

B. F Graziani, of Covington, for appellee.

CARROLL J.

In January, 1911, the appellee, a colored woman, was pushed or thrown from one of the appellant company's cars in which she was riding as a passenger. Charging that the accident and resulting injury was due to the negligence and carelessness of the company, she brought this suit to recover damages, and on a trial a judgment in her favor for $1,500 was entered.

It appears from the evidence in behalf of appellee that she boarded the car early in the morning at Ninth and Greenup streets, in Covington, for the purpose of going to Cincinnati; that, when she got on, the car was well filled both on the inside and on the platform, but there was some standing room in both places; that, when she went to the door for the purpose of going inside the car, she asked the conductor, who was standing in the door, to let her in two or three times, but he paid no attention to her request, and being unable to get in the car, was compelled to remain standing on the platform; that, after she boarded the car, it stopped several times to let on passengers before reaching a point on Court avenue in Covington at which the car stopped for the purpose of transferring passengers to other local cars before proceeding on its way to Cincinnati; that, when the car got to the transfer station, it was crowded with passengers on the inside and on the platform, and the passengers on the platform had so completely surrounded appellee that she could not move in any direction; that, when the car stopped at the transfer station, a crowd of passengers got off in a rush for the purpose of getting on other cars that were standing ready to start, and about the time these passengers were getting off the car on which she was riding was suddenly started with a jerk, and the jerk of the car, together with the pushing and crowding of the passengers in their efforts to get off, caused her to be thrown from the platform to the street.

There is really little contradiction in the evidence as to the fact that the car and the platform were awfully crowded, and it is clear that there was a rush of the passengers to get off at this transfer station, and that in this rush appellee, in some way, was pushed or thrown by them from the platform. The case for appellee was put on the ground that the pushing and crowding of the passengers in their efforts to get off together with the sudden jerk of the car, caused her to be thrown off, and that the company was negligent in jerking the car, and also in permitting it to become so crowded that the passengers in getting off almost necessarily pushed or shoved her from the platform; while the theory of the railway company is that there was no unusual or unnecessary jerk of the car, and that appellee, who was standing on the platform, was pushed from it, without any fault on its part, by passengers getting off the car, for whose acts it was not responsible.

We may at this point say that there is no evidence that appellee was guilty of any negligence, and, omitting further reference to the jerk of the car, it is evident that she was pushed or crowded off the rear platform, on which she was standing when the car stopped at the transfer station, by the passengers in their hurry to get off the car, which was crowded to its utmost capacity of standing room both on the inside and on the platform. Viewing the case from this standpoint, the question for our decision is, Did the company commit a breach of the duty it owed appellee in permitting the car to become so crowded as that passengers in an effort to get off at this transfer station were almost necessarily compelled to push and crowd and shove appellee, who did not want to get off, to such an extent and with such force as to cause her to be pushed or thrown from the platform?

It is argued by counsel for the company that the carrier should not be made responsible in damages for the acts of a crowd of passengers, who, in their hurry to get off of a car,...