Southern Ry. Co. v. Crowder

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: SHARPE, J.
• Citation: 30 So. 592,130 Ala. 256
• Parties: SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. CROWDER. [1]
• Decision Date: 09 May 1901

30 So. 592

130 Ala. 256

SOUTHERN RY. CO.
v.
CROWDER. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 9, 1901

Appeal from city court of Birmingham; W. W. Wilkerson, Judge.

Action by Mary B. Crowder against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This action was brought by Mary B. Crowder, the appellee, against the Southern Railway Company. The complaint claims $30,000 damages for personal injuries sustained by her while a passenger on a train operated by the defendant company, which injuries were alleged to have been caused by reason of the negligence of the defendant and its employés. The defendant pleaded the general issue and contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Upon these pleas the trial was had. Upon the trial the following facts were disclosed: The plaintiff, a married woman, 58 years of age, was riding in the caboose of defendant's freight train on her way from Decatur, Ala., to Huntsville, Ala., and as the train was slowing up for a stop at Madison station, about 10 miles from Huntsville, she fell or was thrown from the chair in which she was sitting to the floor, and received injuries to her hip, causing a fracture or dislocation of the hip joint. The train was in the habit of carrying passengers in the caboose, which was an ordinary freight caboose primarily fitted up for the conductor's and crew's use and occupancy, and was divided into three compartments, the middle compartment being provided with rude benches against the wall, and a chair or two. The plaintiff was seated in one of these chairs in the rear of the rear compartment, when, as she claims, she was thrown to the floor by a violent jar or jerk of the train. It was admitted that she fell from the chair to the floor as the train was stopping for Madison station, and received an injury to her hip, but it is disputed that there was any jarring or jolting of the train of any unusual force other than is ordinarily incident to the stopping of freight trains. This train was composed of 30 cars, engine, tender, and caboose, the caboose being the hindmost car in the train. The principal question at issue was as to the character and extent of the jar, jerk, or jolt, or checking up of the train as it approached the station, which jar or checking was alleged to have caused the plaintiff to fall. The plaintiff contended, and her evidence tended to show, that there was evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant or its conductor, and, further, that the conductor was negligent in not furnishing the plaintiff a better seat or better accommodations than were furnished. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that there was no negligence in this respect, and it was further contended by the defendant that as to such a train upon which the plaintiff was a passenger the law did not require it to furnish its passengers any better, safer, or different accommodations than were usually or ordinarily found on other cabooses under similar circumstances and under like conditions. The other facts of the case necessary to an understanding of the decision of the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Upon the cross-examination of a witness who was introduced by the Defendant the plaintiff's counsel asked him the following question: "Did the defendant pay your way down here?" The defendant objected to this question upon the ground that it called for immaterial evidence. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The witness answered that the defendant gave him a pass, and that he believed the defendant was to pay his expenses. Upon the introduction of all the evidence the defendant requested the court to give to the jury, among others, the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (11) "The jury have the right to test all the evidence in the light of common sense and common experience, and if, in the light of their common sense and common experience, the evidence does not reasonably satisfy their minds that the jar or jolt which caused the plaintiff to fall from her chair was greater than is ordinarily incident to the prudent management of a freight train, they cannot find a verdict against the defendant, so far as negligence in that particular is charged." (12) "Under the evidence in this case, there can be no verdict against the defendant based on any charge of wrong or negligence of the conductor." (13) "Under the evidence in this case, I charge you,...