Thomas v. Shreveport Rys. Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 February 1939
• Docket Number: 5842
• Citation: Thomas v. Shreveport Rys. Co., Inc., 187 So. 822 (La. App. 1939)
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Parties: THOMAS v. SHREVEPORT RYS. CO., Inc.

187 So. 822

THOMAS v. SHREVEPORT RYS. CO., Inc.

No. 5842

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

February 6, 1939

Rehearing Denied March 8, 1939

Appeal from City Court of City of Shreveport, Parish of Caddo Louisiana; Ruvian D. Hendrick, Judge.

Tort action by Agnes Thomas against Shreveport Railways Company Incorporated, for personal injuries allegedly sustained while riding on trolley bus. From the judgment, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed as amended.

$275 to cook, nurse, and washerwoman, who earned $4.50 per week and her meals, and who owed $50 for services and medicines, and who suffered fractured ribs and had headaches and pain between shoulder blades and pain in back, and who was unable to resume her duties 78 days after accident, was insufficient and would be increased to $400.

Wise Randolph, Rendall & Freyer, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Samuel P. Love, of Shreveport, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

This is a tort action wherein plaintiff, a colored woman, seeks to hold the defendant Shreveport Railways Company, in damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her through the fault of the motorman of the trolley bus on which she was riding as a paid passenger.

At about the hour of six o'clock P.M., January 12, 1938, plaintiff boarded the bus at the corner of Line avenue and Gladstone boulevard in the city of Shreveport. She handed the motorman a fifty-cent piece and requested him to sell her a book of four tickets, the price of which was twenty-five cents. While waiting for the book and the change, she balanced herself by holding with one hand the perpendicular rod which is on the motorman's right side and slightly to his rear. After the motorman handed to her the change and book, less one ticket for her fare, she turned and faced the farther end of the trolley with the intention of immediately proceeding to a seat reserved for colored patrons. At this juncture, it is her contention and testimony, the trolley, which had been moving forward, came to a sudden stop, which caused her to lose physical balance, to release her hold on the rod and to fall violently backward to the floor and against the door through which she had a moment prior entered. She testified that two colored male passengers rushed forward, raised her up and assisted her to a seat in the rear of the trolley, but that no assistance was rendered her by the motorman.

Plaintiff's version of the facts of the accident is substantially corroborated by one of the men who came to her rescue and by two other colored women passengers neither of whom, so far as the record discloses, has any interest in the outcome of the case. There appears no reason for them to color their testimony. If worthy of belief, and there is nothing apparent to discredit them, the testimony of these witnesses, supporting that of plaintiff, certainly makes out a strong prima facie case for her. The only evidence offered by defendant to countervail that submitted by plaintiff is that of the motorman. He was briefly interrogated on behalf of the defendant and simply stated that after plaintiff boarded his trolley the evening of the accident, it underwent no unusual " jolt or jar" . Inferentially, he admits that plaintiff experienced some sort of accident while holding to the upright hand rod near him, but says " she never hit the floor at all" and for this reason she did not need his assistance. This testimony is not sufficient to overcome the strong prima facie case made out by plaintiff.

It does not appear that the motorman reported to defendant that plaintiff had an accident on his trolley, but we are constrained to believe he did so. Within three hours after she reached her home, defendant's employed physician, Dr Rowland, visited her for the purpose of rendering such medical aid as her case required. He made this visit upon the direction of someone connected with or employed by defendant and in addition made two other visits to her. Further visits were not made by this doctor, he says, because defendant did not request him to do so and he did not think her condition necessitated him doing so. If the motorman did not report an accident to the company, we are curious to know why the physician was sent to treat plaintiff. Someone having knowledge that plaintiff did experience an accident of some sort at the time and place she claims, had enough interest in defendant's welfare to communicate this knowledge to it or else the doctor would not have been so promptly directed to visit plaintiff for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of her injuries and of treating her. Whatever the nature of the accident was, someone must have believed it not improbable that plaintiff received injury of a more or less serious character therefrom. If she did not fall and did not release her hold from the upright rod, as the motorman says, no good reason exists for anyone who observed her movements to think she was injured. The converse of this is also true. Dr. Rowland found a slight tenderness below the lower margin of the ribs, posteriorly, and was asked: " What do you attribute the tenderness to?" To which he gave this significant answer: " That is hard to say, because I did not know whether she struck her side or back against the...