Takacs v. Detroit United Ry., 107.

• Decision Date: 20 March 1926
• Docket Number: No. 107.,107.
• Citation: 207 N.W. 907,234 Mich. 42
• Parties: TAKACS v. DETROIT UNITED RY.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

234 Mich. 42

207 N.W. 907

TAKACS

v.DETROIT UNITED RY.

No. 107.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 20, 1926.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Ormond F. Hunt, Judge.

Action by Kalmar Takacs against the Detroit United Railway. Judgment on a directed verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before BIRD, C. J., and SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, and McDONALD, JJ.Joseph S. McDowell, of Detroit (Joseph Fabian, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.

William G. Fitzpatrick, of Highland Park, and John G. Cross, of Detroit, for appellee.

STEERE, J.

On March 25, 1915, while a passenger on a west-bound interurban car on defendant's so-called ‘Fort Line’ by West Jefferson avenue to the west city limits of Detroit, plaintiff's wrist was severely cut on broken glass in a door between the smoker and main body of the car as he was attempting to reach the rear door to alight at his destination near the city limits. Imputing the accident to negligence of defendant's agents, he brought this action in tort to recover damages for the injury so sustained. The case came to trial in the circuit court of Wayne county on November 9, 1923, resulting in a directed verdict for defendant, followed by judgment thereon.

Defendant introduced no testimony upon the trial, but, when plaintiff rested moved for a directed verdict on the ground that plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case, had shown his own negligence caused his injury, and defendant's claimed negligence, if any, was not the proximate cause of the injury, and the trial court so held.

Plaintiff produced two witnesses besides himself-his cousin, Alex Takacs, and a fellow passenger named Tony Pianto. The three resided near each other in the western portion of Detroit near the intersection of Jefferson and West End avenue; were all three employed at the Dodge automobile factory in Hamtramck; and were returning from their work together by the familiar route they were traveling that evening.

Defendant operated over its West Jefferson avenue line, in connection with its local city cars, a system of interurban cars known as the ‘Wyandotte & Trenton Line,’ using larger and differently constructed cars for that purpose, which also were available to local passengers.

These cars had an entrance at the front leading into the motorman's vestibule, from there through a door in a partition to a smoking room, and from the smoker through a door in a partition into the main body of the car. Along the right side of the car facing the front was an aisle with all the seats at its left. This aisle ended at a doorway in the rear partition of the car, leading out to a rear platform. The partition doors were opened and closed by sliding into and out of the partitions. Plaintiff testified that in his journeys back and forth he had never ridden in that car before.

On the evening in question the three fellow workmen came down from their place of employment at the Dodge Bros.' plant on a Baker street car, and transferred at Griswold and Fort street to a west-bound Jefferson avenue car. In so doing that evening they boarded one of the Wyandotte-Trenton interurban cars at the rear, and took seats forward in the smoking room, where they remained until they arose to leave the car at their destination. When they took the car it had few passengers, but, as it proceeded westward on its run, picking them up at different points, the seats became filled, and the car crowded with the aisles full of standing passengers. Forward in the smoker, where plaintiff was, he estimated 10 or 15 could stand, and said there were ‘as many as can stand up in there.’ He and his two companions sat in the back seat of the smoker, next to its rear partition. The glass in the door of the partition between the smoker and main body of the car was broken, and plaintiff's wrist cut by it when he was trying to open the door to get to the rear platform to alight at his destination. Defendant's duty and negligence charged in his declaration are:

‘That as a passenger on said car he was entitled to be allowed to alight safely therefrom at his destination, and was entitled to be accorded reasonable free and safe egress, and that the passageways should not have been blocked by the acts of said defendant, its servants, agents, and employés, or, if such doors became blocked, plaintiff was entitled to have such obstruction removed and such doors opened for him by the servants, agents, and employés of said defendant, and that plaintiff was entitled to have said car stopped to permit him to alight upon his giving proper signal, all of which rights defendant refused to grant to plaintiff.’

Plaintiff's assignments of error are against the court's direction of a verdict for defendant, errors in charging the jury, and refusal of plaintiff's requests. If the court was right in directing the verdict, plaintiff's requests and what the court said to the jury call for no consideration. The court's reasons for taking the case from the jury were, in substance, that, accepting plaintiff's testimony as true, it showed no proximate, causal connection between the conduct of defendant's agents, who were in charge of the car, and plaintiff cutting his wrist on glass broken in the partition door while he was trying to open it before the car stopped.

Plaintiff's testimony is somewhat at random and self-contradictory as to where he wanted to leave the car that evening. He said he was accustomed to take and get off the street cars at West End avenue, ‘which is the nearest point to my home.’ * * * ‘I was pushing the button to ger off first on the corner of Crossley. * * * I lived on Crossley-I wanted to get off at Crossley avenue,’ but his story as finally told was that he did not want to get off at either Crossley or West End avenues, but at the Solvay Railroad, which crosses the street car line between Crossley and West End crossings, and is a forced stop. Leading up to his accident, he said in part:

‘The car was very crowded, and I thought I would get off before I got to West End avenue anyway. * * * The place I wanted to get off was Solvay crossing first. * * * I rang the bell after I got to Crossley for the purpose of stopping at the railroad track. * * * I myself rang the bell the first time. * * * I had to stand up to ring that bell. My other two friends were sitting with me. They were right beside me. We all got up together in order to get off. I started first for the front door. I was the first one that went towards the motorman's door.’

He and his cousin, Alex, then worked their way through the crowd to the forward door of the smoker in the partition back of the motorman's vestibule, and tried to open it, but were unable to do so. They rapped on the glass in the door, and asked the motorman through the closed door to open it. He looked around and laughed at them, as they stated, then turned back, and ‘kept on going.’ The car started up at the Solvay railroad crossing stop while they were trying to get that door open, and plaintiff rang the bell for the West End avenue crossing. They then turned back through the crowded aisle to go to the rear of the car. When they reached the partition door between the smoker and body of the car plaintiff first tried unsuccessfully to open it, and then Tony took hold. Up to that time there is no evidence of any unusual disturbance or demonstration of hostility by the standing crowd in the smoker through wich they had worked their way forward and back, beyond their statement that the people laughed at them. Tony's effort resulted in his falling against the side window of the car and...