The Kentucky And Indiana Bridge Co. v. Quinkert
| Decision Date | 16 September 1891 |
| Docket Number | 75 |
| Citation | 28 N.E. 338,2 Ind.App. 244 |
| Parties | THE KENTUCKY AND INDIANA BRIDGE COMPANY v. QUINKERT |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Floyd Circuit Court.
Judgmnet affirmed with costs.
A Dowling, for appellant.
C. L Jewett and H. E. Jewett, for appellee.
This is an action against the appellant, originating before a justice of the peace, to recover damages because of an injury to one of appellee's fingers, received while she was travelling on the cars of the appellant, and alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the latter, and without fault on the part of the appellee.
Before the justice, the appellant entered a special appearance, and moved to dismiss the action for want of a sufficient complaint. The motion was overruled, a full appearance made thereafter by the appellant, and trial by the court with finding and judgment for $ 200 in favor of the appellee. The company appealed to the circuit court, and there renewed the motion to dismiss for want of a sufficient complaint, which motion was overruled and exception reserved. There was a trial by jury, resulting in a verdict for the appellee in the sum of $ 100, and over a motion for a new trial, and exception, judgment was rendered upon the verdict.
The action of the court in overruling the motion to dismiss, and the motion for a new trial, is assigned as error by the appellant.
The complaint, in substance, is, that on the 8th of October, 1887, the defendant was operating a steam railroad, as a common carrier of passengers for hire, from the city of New Albany, Indiana, to Louisville, Kentucky; that the appellee paid to the appellant five cents to be carried on said road from Oak street to Fourth street in said city of New Albany; that when said train was stopped on Fourth street, the servants of the appellant notified the appellee to alight, and for that purpose she went out upon the platform of the car upon which she had been riding, through an open door which the defendant had negligently failed to secure or fasten, but allowed to remain so that a sudden start or jar of the train would cause the same to shut; that when she got upon the platform it was discovered that the servants of the appellant, in charge of the train, had negligently stopped the train at a place where the appellee could not alight, and thereupon said servants told her to remain on the platform; and without giving her time to return into the car, and while she was standing on said platform, in the darkness of the night, and holding her infant child in her arms, said servants negligently started said train with a violent jerk which caused said door to close violently upon the appellee's fingers, injuring, wounding and cutting them; that by reason of said injuries the appellee was disabled from attending to her daily duties, was permanently disabled as to one of her said fingers, and suffered great bodily pain and mental anguish, and was put to great expense for medical attention, to her damage in the sum of $ 200; that said injuries were received without any fault or negligence on her part.
Two objections are made to the complaint: First, that it does not show actionable negligence on the part of the appellant; and, second, that notwithstanding the allegation that the appellee was without fault, other averments show that she was guilty of contributory negligence.
We doubt if the allegations relative to the failure of the appellant to secure or fasten the door tend to show negligence on the part of the appellant. We think, however, that, independent of that, there is such negligence alleged against the appellant, and freedom from fault on the part of the appellee averred, as required of the court below the overruling of the motion to dismiss the case. So long as the facts stated do not force the legal conclusion that there was contributory fault, the averment that there was no such fault entitles the plaintiff to have tried the question of fact whether there was such negligence. Pittsburgh, etc., R. W. Co. v. Wright, 80 Ind. 182.
According to the averments in the complaint the appellee was on the train of the appellant as a passenger, paying her fare, to be carried from Oak street to Fourth street in the city of New Albany. Having been received by the appellant upon its train as a passenger, with her fare paid, to be carried between the points named, it became the duty of the appellant to carry her safely, and to protect her from all wrongful or negligent acts on the part of its servants. Pennsylvania Co. v. Dean, 92 Ind. 459.
By the sale of a ticket, or the receipt of the price for transportation, from one point to another, a railway company expressly contracts to carry such person to the point covered by the contract, and in addition to that, a contract arises by implication, between the company and the passenger, that the latter shall be carried safely, so far as human foresight, reasonably exercised, can guard against disaster. 2 Wood Railway Law, p. 1178.
In the case of Jeffersonville R. R. Co. v. Hendricks', 26 Ind. 228, the court, speaking of the duty of railroad companies, said: "But they are required to exercise the highest degree of care to secure the safety of passengers, and are responsible for the slightest neglect, if an injury is caused thereby."
Other cases, of the same import, are found in the Supreme Court Reports of this and other States, and the rule is so stated in the text-books. Sherlock v. Alling, 44 Ind. 184; Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Kelly, 92 Ind. 371; Bedford, etc., R. R. Co. v. Rainbolt, 99 Ind. 551; Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Thompson, 107 Ind. 442, 8 N.E. 18; Grand Rapids, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ellison, 117 Ind. 234, 20 N.E. 135; Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Snyder, 117 Ind. 435, 20 N.E. 284; Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583; 2 Wood Railway Law, p. 1093; 1 Shearman and Redfield Law of Negligence, sections 43, 51; 2 Shearman and Redfield Law of Negligence, sections 495, 496; Hutchinson Carriers, sections 500, 501; Thompson Carriers, pp. 200, 204.
The law will not tolerate any negligence on the part of carriers of passengers, although they are not insurers of the safety of their passengers. Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Snyder, supra.
The gravamen of the action in such case is the (alleged) breach of the duty imposed by law upon the carrier to carry safely, so far as human skill and foresight can go, the persons it undertakes to carry.
It is alleged in the complaint that when the train stopped on Fourth street, the appellee was notified by those in charge of the train to alight, and that she went out upon the platform, but could not get off where the train had then stopped, and was told by the servants of the appellant to remain on the platform; that while she was thus upon the platform, in the dark, with a child in her arms, without giving her time to return into the cars, those in charge of the train negligently started the same with a violent jerk, which caused the car door to violently close upon and injure her finger. How violent the jerk or motion of the train was is not made very clear from the complaint, but if it was so violent as to produce the injury in the manner described, and the violent motion or jerk of the train was because of the negligence of the appellant's servants in starting the train, the appellant, in the light of the authorities we have cited, would be liable therefor, if the appellee was free from contributory fault. That the sudden or violent motion or jerking of a train may be negligence, see Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Crunk, 119 Ind. 542, 21 N.E. 31; Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Bisch, 120 Ind. 549, 22 N.E. 662; Dougherty v. Missouri R. R. Co., 81 Mo. 325; Wood v. Lake Shore R. W. Co., 49 Mich. 370; 2 Wood Railway Law 1125, 13 N.W. 779.
Was the appellee without fault according to the averments in the complaint?
It is alleged in the complaint, in direct terms, that there was no fault or negligence on her part. It has long been the rule in this State that the general averment that the plaintiff was without fault is sufficient, unless the facts specially pleaded clearly show negligence proximately contributing to the injury. Board, etc., v. Legg, 93 Ind. 523; Ohio, etc., R. W. Co. v. Walker, 113 Ind. 196, 15 N.E. 234; Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Stommel, 126 Ind. 35, 25 N.E. 863.
We do not think it is made to appear from the averments in the complaint that the appellee was in fault. The facts pleaded, instead of exhibiting contributory negligence, point the other way.
It is claimed by the appellant's counsel that the appellee failed in her duty when she went upon the platform of the car with her infant child in her arms, and permitted her hand or finger to be in a position where it was liable to be injured if the door closed upon it.
It does not appear from the complaint that the appellee voluntarily, and independent of the sudden motion of the train, so placed her hand, and even if it did so appear, we are not prepared to say as a matter of law that it would be negligence on her part, under the circumstances disclosed in the complaint, to stay or support herself by taking hold of the door frame.
It may be stated, as a general rule, that a passenger upon a railway car, who voluntarily and...
To continue reading
Request your trial