William Stokes, Plaintiff In Error v. Francis Saltonstall, Defendant In Error

• Decision Date: 01 January 1839
• Parties: WILLIAM B. STOKES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. FRANCIS W. SALTONSTALL, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

38 U.S. 181

13 Pet. 181

10 L.Ed. 115

WILLIAM B. STOKES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. FRANCIS W. SALTONSTALL, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

January Term, 1839

IN error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Maryland.

The defendant in error, Francis W. Saltonstall, in September, 1836, instituted an action for the recovery of damages against Richard C. Stockton and William B. Stokes, owners of a line of stages for carrying passengers from Baltimore to Wheeling; Mr. Saltonstall and his wife having on the 6th day of December, 1836, been passengers in the stage, when, by the carelessness, unskilfulness, and default of the driver, the stage was upset; by reason of which Mrs. Saltonstall had her hip fractured, and several other bones of her body broken, and was otherwise greatly cut, bruised, and injured, so that her life was endangered.

By an agreement between the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant's no objection was to be taken to the nonjoinder of other persons as defendants, who were also owners or interested in the line of stages, when the injury complained of in the action occurred; and the plaintiff might recover in this action any damages which might be recovered in an action by himself and wife, or by himself alone.

Richard C. Stockton having died after the institution of the suit, it was proceeded in against William B. Stokes, who survived him.

The cause was tried before a jury, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff, under the instructions of the Court, for seven thousand dollars. On this verdict the Court gave a judgment for the plaintiff.

The counsel for the defendant tendered a bill of exceptions to the opinion of the Court; and he afterwards prosecuted this writ of error.

The bill of exceptions stated, at large, the evidence given on the trial of the cause.

The evidence of the witnesses for the plaintiff, taken under a commission to New Orleans, and examined on the trial, stated, that at the last change of horses, before the accident, the passengers generaily remarked that the driver seemed to have drank too much to go on. Mr. Saltonstall, the plaintiff, went to the agent, or the person avowing himself as such, and who was acting in that capacity, and reported to him the observation made by the passengers; the agent replied that the driver was all straight, and that the appearance of his being intoxicated was entirely owing to his having driven during the night previous, which had been excessively cold. When the stage arrived at about two miles from Bevansville, the passengers felt the stage strike against a mound or ridge on the right side of the road. Mr. Saltonstall on observing this, immediately jumped out, as was believed, with the intention of stopping the horses; Mrs. Saltonstall attempted to follow her husband, but fell to the ground at the very instant the stage upset, and it fell directly on her. The upset took place on Sunday afternoon, the 5th day of December, at about four o'clock in the afternoon. It was broad daylight. The plaintiff's wife was dreadfully injured; she was taken up and carried to a log-house in the neighbourhood. The injury was occasioned by the falling of the stage on her body.

A witness stated that the road was perfectly level, and in good travelling order. There had been ice, but it had been so beaten down that there was only a little remaining on the sides of the road. The centre was free from it. The road was not considered dangerous or difficult. The driver was believed to be intoxicated, and his intoxication was increased by his drinking with a man on the seat along side of him. This belief was produced by his reckless and irregular manner of driving, which called for repeated remonstrances from the passengers, and which were wholly unattended to; and for his apparent stupied and drunken manner of conduct after the upset. He was totally unfit for any thing; he could not, or would not answer a question, nor afford the least possible assistance.

The injuries sustained by Mrs. Salstonstall were proved by the surgeons and medical attendants, and they were such as to make it impossible, or too dangerous to attempt to move her from the log hut, from the time of the accident, the sixth day of December, until the eighteenth day of December, when she was carried to Bevansville, where she remained until the eighteenth day of May following. In July of the same year, she was in Philadelphia, still in a state of great suffering, and using crutches.

The plaintiff also proved, by Mr. Ludlow, who was a passenger in a stage which arrived after the accident, that the road was perfectly good, and was one of which a stage would not be likely to upset. The witness went to the driver, and had some conversation with him. The defendant's counsel objected to the statements of the driver being admitted in evidence; but the Court declared them to be admissible; to which the counsel for the defendant excepted. The plaintiff then further proved by Mr. Ludlow, that he asked the driver how the accident happened, when he stated he had upset fifty coaches, and he did not believe the woman was as much hurt as she said she was.

The testimony offered by the defendant, was intended to show the capacity and sobriety of the driver, and that the road was icy, difficult, and dangerous; and that the upsetting of the stage might be accounted for by the slippery and icy condition of the road. The evidence for the defendants, it was contended, proved that had the wife of the plaintiff remained in the stage, no injury would have resulted to her. The other passengers were not materially bruised. The defendant also proved, that the coach and harness were properly made, and of sufficient strength; and that the horses were good and steady.

The defendant's counsel prayed the Court to instruct the jury in sixteen different prayers. Among those were the following:

1. If the jury shall believe from the evidence in the cause, that the injury to the plaintiff's wife was occasioned solely by the overturning of the coach, and by its falling upon her; and that such overturning was occasioned by the act of the plaintiff and his wife, or either of them, in leaping from, or otherwise in leaving the said coach; and shall further believe, from the evidence in the cause, that at the time of such leaping from, or of such leaving said coach, there did not exist any certain peril, nor any immediate danger of personal injury, nor any reasonable cause of apprehension of impending danger by remaining in the coach; then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover upon the issue joined in this case, in respect to the said injury sustained by his wife; even if they also believe from the evidence in the cause, that the driver was guilty of carelessness, negligence, and misconduct, in placing the coach in the particular place and situation in which it was at the time of such leaping from, or leaving the coach.

2. If the jury shall believe from the evidence in the cause, that the injury to the plaintiff's wife was occasioned solely by the overturning of the coach, and its falling upon her; and that such overturning was occasioned by the act of the plaintiff and his wife, or either of them, in leaping from, or otherwise in leaving the coach and shall further believe from the evidence in the cause, that such leaping from, or such leaving the coach, was not under the actual circumstances an act of prudent precaution for the purpose of self-preservation; nor such an act as a person of ordinary care, prudence, or resolution would have adopted, under the actual circumstances, even if they shall believe from the evidence, that such leaping from, or such leaving said coach, was under the existence and incitement of actual alarm and apprehension of supposed impending danger; then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover upon the issue joined in this cause, in respect of said injury sustained by his said wife.

3. If the jury shall believe from the evidence in the cause, that the injury sustained by the plaintiff's wife was occasioned solely by the overturning of the coach, and by its falling upon her; and that such overturning was occasioned by the act of the plaintiff and his said wife, or by the act of either of them, in leaping from, or otherwise in leaving said coach; and shall further believe, from the evidence in the cause, that such leaping from, or leaving of said coach was not effected with proper caution and prudence, under the actual circumstances, as well in reference to the situation in which the said plaintiff and his wife, (if the overturning was occasioned by the act of both,) were placed; or, if such overturning was occasioned only by the act of one, in reference to the situation of such one of them, by whom such overturning was occasioned, was placed; as also in reference to the situation in which said coach was placed in position, with respect to the ground on which it stood, and otherwise, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, in respect to said injury to his said wife.

4. If the jury shall believe from the evidence in the cause, that the injury to the plaintiff's wife was occasioned solely by the falling of the coach upon her, and that she was then outside of the coach and on the ground; and shall further believe, that at the time she leapt from, or left the coach, she knew, or believed, that it was overturning, or about to overturn, and leapt from, or left it for that cause, and that she designedly alighted on the ground in the direction in which the coach was overturning, or about to overturn; that then, such her act was a rash and imprudent act, and the defendant is not responsible upon the issue joined in this cause for the injury which she so sustained; even if the jury shall, at the same time, believe that such overturning was occasioned by the fault or negligence of the driver.

5. If the jury shall find, from the evidence, that the plaintiff's wife, if she had remained in...