Stimson v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1890 |
| Citation | 44 N.W. 748,75 Wis. 381 |
| Parties | STIMSON v. MILWAUKEE, L. S. & W. RY. CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Outagamie county; MYERS, Judge.J. W. Meiklejohn and John Goodland, for appellant.
Alfred L. Cary, for respondent.
This action was brought by the appellant to recover damages for a personal injury she received while entering a passenger car of the company. The facts are few, and very simple. On the 24th of December, 1887, a passenger train of the company made its usual stop at New London, a station on its road. The plaintiff purchased a ticket from that place to Marion, another station on the same road. When the train stopped at New London, the plaintiff went on board one of the cars. Entering the car at the rear end, and carrying a satchel in her hand, she walked along the aisle of the car, looking for a seat, and while so walking, she stumbled over two satchels, which were then in such aisle, and fell, and received considerable injury. None of the employes of the company were in the car at the time of the accident. The car was lighted at the time, so that a person entering the same could, by looking, see whether there were any obstructions in the aisle. Upon this evidence, the learned circuit judge nonsuited the plaintiff, holding that there was no evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the company or of its employes. From the judgment entered on such nonsuit the plaintiff appeals to this court. It is alleged that the learned circuit judge erred in holding that there was no evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the company. It is claimed that it is the duty of the company to see that the aisles of their cars are not obstructed, either by satchels or any other thing, in such a way as to endanger the safety of passengers entering or leaving such cars. This proposition must be admitted to be true, so far as to compel the company and its employes to use due care and diligence in keeping the aisles of the cars unobstructed. The question in this case is whether, upon the evidence given on the trial, it raises a presumption that there was any want of care or diligence on the part of the company or its employes, in not discovering and removing the obstruction in question. On the part of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is claimed that the proof of the accident raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the employes of the company, and the cases of Kirst v. Railway Co., 46 Wis. 489, 1 N. W. Rep. 89;Cummings v. Furnace Co., 60 Wis. 603, 18 N. W. Rep. 742, and 20 N. W. Rep. 665; and Muster v. Railway...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Rice v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company
-
Morrison v. Pacific Northwest Public Service Co.
... ... well be thought that the doctrine res ipsa cannot apply to such a case; but that question, also, we need not decide." The early case of Stimson v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. Ry. Co., 75 Wis. 381, 44 N.W. 748, 749, involved a passenger who tripped over a satchel in the aisle of a passenger car ... ...
-
Garrett v. American Airlines, Inc.
...in an aisle, such as in Gulf C & S Ry. v. Blackmon, Tex.Civ.App., error refused, 1932, 56 S.W.2d 199; and Stimson v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. R. R., 1890, 75 Wis. 381, 44 N.W. 748; 19 A. L.R. 1372 (1922), 74 A.L.R.2d 1336 (1960) are, of course, quite 3 The principles expressed here are not in ......
-
Tiborsky v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...prove that any one not in the employ of the defendant had anything to do with the truck. In that respect it differs from Stimson v. Ry., 75 Wis. 381, 383, 44 N. W. 748. After careful consideration, we are constrained to hold that the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury. 2. ......