White Star Lines, Inc. v. Williams
| Decision Date | 26 February 1949 |
| Citation | 222 S.W.2d 209,32 Tenn.App. 177 |
| Parties | WHITE STAR LINES, Inc. v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court April 30, 1949.
Appeal in Error from Law Court of Knox County; Wm. C. Burton, Judge.
Action by Charles Williams, by next friend, J. R. Williams, against White Star Lines, Inc., to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when he fell over a rock wall adjacent to sidewalk at which bus which plaintiff intended to board was parked. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals in error.
Judgment reversed and case dismissed.
Goddard & Gamble, Maryville, and Clyde W. Key Knoxville, for plaintiff in error.
Hodges & Doughty and Roy N. Stansberry, Knoxville, for defendant in error.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Charles Williams, age 16, when he fell over a rock wall immediately prior to his intention of entering one of defendant's buses while the bus was parked unattended on the north side of Harper Street in the City of Maryville.
Plaintiff's declaration alleges specific grounds of negligence, as follows:
(a) In maintaining a terminal for passengers alongside a deep abyss or pit.
(b) In failing, refusing and neglecting to provide or maintain guards or rails along the edge of the sidewalk utilized as a terminal.
(c) In failing, refusing and neglecting to provide lighting at the place utilized as a terminal.
(d) In failing, refusing and neglecting to have its buses under the care and control of an agent at the time plaintiff was invited to board the same.
(e) In requiring members of the public to board its bus at a place where the sidewalk was completely blocked by an open door of its vehicle.
(f) In failing, refusing and neglecting to advise plaintiff of the dangerous condition existing.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence and at the conclusion of all the evidence, defendant moved for a directed verdict which the court overruled and, after deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $5,000 which the trial judge approved. Thereupon, defendant filed motion for a new trial, which was denied, and defendant has appealed to this Court, assigning errors.
The record discloses that defendant, White Star Lines, Inc., was on the date plaintiff was injured engaged in the business of transporting passengers for hire with its principal office in Maryville, Tennessee. It held various franchises from the State Railroad and Public Utilities Commission as a common carrier of passengers between certain cities, including Maryville and Knoxville. In addition to its inter-city operations, the defendant also conducted a street bus service in and around the City of Maryville under a franchise granted to it by the City authorities of Maryville. The defendant, in consideration of the City of Maryville granting to it a franchise including the use of terminal facilities located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Court and Harper Streets, contracted to pay the City of Maryville a percentage of its gross receipts.
Subsequent to the granting of the aforesaid franchise, the Maryville authorities on July 17, 1946, authorized the defendant to stop and park its city buses on the north side of Harper Street 60 or 70 feet east of its bus terminal. This space allotted approximated 60 feet in length running eastwardly from the intersection of Harper and Court Streets to a point approximately 10 feet west of a telephone pole, and was sufficient in which to park two buses with 10 feet over to enable the buses to pull in and out without difficulty.
Harper Street runs generally east and west and is paralleled on the north by a sidewalk. North of the sidewalk and paralleling it is a wall 18 inches or more in height and about 28 inches wide, and without guard rail. This street going in a westwardly direction is on an incline and in order to take care of the incline, instead of making the wall itself on an incline, it was originally constructed so that the top of the wall was in the nature of steps several feet apart. North of the wall the ground was approximately 20 feet lower than the top of the wall, thus creating a precipitous drop from the top of the wall of approximately 20 feet. This part of the terrain which is lower than the widewalk was on the night of the accident used by defendant for parking buses.
In that portion of Harper Street allotted by the authorities of the City of Maryville, the defendant erected or caused to be erected signs, as follows: 'Bus Stop--White Star Lines', or 'No Parking--Bus Stop--White Star Lines'.
Usually the buses operated by defendant on the City runs were small buses, commonly known as city-type buses. Defendant had only two of these smaller buses and when either or both of them were off for repairs or servicing, the defendant used the same type of bus used on runs between Maryville and Knoxville, which is a larger bus with a door that opens out, rather than fold like an accordion, such as was on the smaller buses.
On the night in question, there is no dispute but what one of the larger buses was being used by the defendant, and by stipulation the parties agreed that the width of the door on said bus was 34 1/2 inches wide.
On December 30, 1946, the plaintiff, accompanied by his friend, Ray Harrell, age 15, rode defendant's bus from plaintiff's home on Everett High Road, to the business section of Maryville (a distance of about one mile), where they attended an evening show. After the show the two boys went to defendant's bus where it was parked unattended on Harper Street in the space heretofore described. There they intended to take the bus for the purpose of returning to their homes. Upon reaching the bus the plaintiff and his companion saw inside the bus two young girls, Joan Crisp and Norma Russell, whom they recognized apparently by the street lights since the bus lights were not on. These girls lived near plaintiff's home and had preceded plaintiff and his companion from the show and had entered the bus and closed the door because the weather was cold and disagreeable. Plaintiff stopped near the bus door and from where he was standing on the sidewalk he called to the girls to open the door so that he and his companion could enter the bus. In response to his request, one of the girls, Joan Crisp, attempted to open the bus door by taking hold of the door handle near the driver's seat. Whether the bus door was ever opened by the Crisp girl is in dispute. Both girls testified that they did not believe the door was ever opened; that it may have been partially opened, but that it was never opened all the way. Plaintiff testified that he stopped back after requesting that the door be opened to avoid being struck by it as it opened; that as he stepped back his shoe heel struck the 18 inch wall immediately behind him causing him to wall over the wall to the ground below, a distance of 20 feet, from which fall he sustained serious personal injuries. It is admitted that no part of the door actually struck plaintiff.
Since the street was subsequently improved, the testimony of witnesses varied as to the width of the sidewalk at the time of the accident. Plaintiff's witness, Lloyd Harrell, testified that he went to the scene of the accident shortly after it occurred and that the sidewalk itself was 36 inches wide, but he was unable to say for sure about the presence of, or width of, the grass plot between the curb and the sidewalk. All the witnesses testified that the widewalk after the street was graded was not as wide as it previously was.
The procedure in loading buses, both on city runs and on inter-city runs, was that the driver would notify the dispatcher at the terminal, where there was a heated room for passengers, that it was time for his run and the dispatcher would announce over the loudspeaker system that a certain bus was ready for...
To continue reading
Request your trial