Valentine v. Northern P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 September 1912
• Citation: 126 P. 99,70 Wash. 95
• Parties: VALENTINE et ux. v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

126 P. 99

70 Wash. 95

VALENTINE et ux. v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 4, 1912

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; H. A. P. Myers Judge.

Action by L. L. Valentine and wife against the Northern Pacific Railway Company and another. From a judgment of nonsuit plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Roney &amp Loveless, for appellants.

C. H. Winders and Chas. F. Munday, for respondents.

ELLIS J.

This appeal is from a judgment of nonsuit in an action to recover damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff Annie L. Valentine, which injuries it is charged were caused by the negligence of the defendants.

The plaintiffs, husband and wife, on April 4, 1911, at about 11 o'clock p. m., took passage upon a train of the defendant railway company at Portland, Or., for Tacoma, Wash. They had purchased a sleeper ticket entitling them to berth No. 11 on the Pullman sleeper which formed a part of the train. This berth was the last one on the right-hand side of the car as one entered it from the rear. In the rear end of the car was the women's toilet room and lavatory, the latter connected with the former by a door. Between this toilet room and the body of the car was a compartment or stateroom. At this room the main aisle of the car turned to one side and passed out to the rear end of the car. This side passageway was about 14 feet in length and about 2 feet wide. The toilet room door opened inwardly from this passage, at a point about 7 or 8 feet from where it turned toward the middle of the car. There was no light in this side passage when the plaintiffs entered the car [70 Wash. 97] at 11 o'clock, nor when the accident happened. When they entered the car, and throughout the night, there was a dim light at each end of the main aisle between the berths. There was no light in the toilet room. Mrs. Valentine testified that both the passageway and the toilet room were in total darkness. At about 1 o'clock Mrs. Valentine, having occasion to seek the toilet room, went down this side passage, opened the toilet room door in the darkness, pushed aside a portière or curtain hanging across the toilet room just within the door, and found the toilet room also in darkness. She stepped back, intending to call the porter to light up, when the car lurched, threw her against the outer wall of the passageway, and back again toward the door. She threw her right hand up to steady herself, and at that instant the door of the toilet room automatically closed, catching her little finger in the hinge side of the door, crushing it. Blood poisoning supervened, necessitating the amputation of the little finger at the second joint, and causing her whole right hand to become permanently stiff and maimed.

The amended complaint, upon which plaintiffs went to trial, alleged as a basis of liability that the defendants negligently maintained the door with a spring for closing it, so strong as to render the use of the door dangerous, and negligently kept the passage in darkness. At the close of their evidence the plaintiffs were permitted to further amend the complaint, so as to more definitely state the negligence relied upon and to conform to their evidence. The amendment was as follows: 'Because of the door, negligently constructed with a very strong spring behind it, as aforesaid, and because of the negligence of the defendants and their servants in not warning the plaintiff Mrs. Annie L. Valentine of said construction as aforesaid, and because she could not see where to place her hand in a safe place on account of the aisle, passageway, and dressing room negligently kept in total darkness by the defendant as aforesaid, the plaintiff Mrs. Annie L. Valentine was injured in the manner hereinafter mentioned.' The only allegation tending to implicate the Pullman Company was the following: 'That on or about the 4th day of April, 1911, and now, the defendants were and are the owners of and operate a certain railroad, commonly known as the 'Northern Pacific Railway,' together with the tracks, cars, locomotives, rolling stock, and other appurtenances thereunto belonging, and were and now are common carriers of passengers for hire between the places hereinafter mentioned, among others.' This was denied by the answer of the Pullman Company, and no evidence was offered tending to show ownership, management, or dominion of the Pullman Company, further than incidental reference to the sleeping car as a Pullman car. While it was alleged and proven that the plaintiffs 'purchased a sleeper ticket for lower berth No. 11, car No. 12, of said train,' there was neither allegation nor proof that the ticket was purchased from the Pullman Company, or any agent or representative of that company. The nonsuit as to the respondent Pullman Company was properly granted.

As to the respondent Northern Pacific Railway Company the case presents a different aspect. It operated the train as a common carrier. As such it was incumbent upon it to exercise the highest degree of care, prudence, and foresight for the safety of its passengers compatible with the practical performance of the duty of transportation. It would be liable for the slightest negligence with reference to the exercise of such care. This is law so familiar and has been announced so often in various forms of expression as to require little citation of authority. Jordan v. Seattle, Renton & Southern Railway Co., 47 Wash. 503, 92 P. 284; Mueller v. Washington Water Power Co., 56 Wash. 556, 106 P. 476; 6 Cyc. pp. 591, 592, 593. 'This caution and vigilance must necessarily be extended to all agencies or means employed by the carrier in the transportation of passengers.' Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Hess, 2 Wash. 383, 389, 26 P. 866.

The duty to exercise this highest degree of care was primarily that of the railway company. It could not avoid liability for negligence in that regard by any private contract or arrangement with the Pullman Company. Herrman v. Great Northern Railway Co., 27 Wash. 472, 68 P. 82, 57 L. R. A. 390. If there was any evidence tending to show, and from which an inference might reasonably be drawn, that the proximate cause of the injury was either an improper or dangerous spring on the door, or the failure to light the passageway or toilet room, then the question of the liability of the railway company should have been submitted to the jury.

A careful consideration of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the case, so far as dependent upon the first charge of negligence, was properly taken from the jury. It is matter of common knowledge that, when a swiftly moving train passes over even a well-constructed roadbed, there will be much swaying and lurching of the cars from side to side especially in rounding curves. Common prudence would dictate that a door such as the one here in question should be provided with a spring or some other device having sufficient propulsive force to close and latch the door, and...