Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co. v. Kelly

• Decision Date: 12 December 1910
• Parties: YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. A. G. KELLY
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

53 So. 779

98 Miss. 367

YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. A. G. KELLY

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 12, 1910

October 1910

FROM the circuit court of Holmes county, HON. J. M. CASHIN, Judge.

This was an action to recover damages for personal injury, brought by appellee against appellant. The injury complained of was the severe mashing of appellee's little finger on the left hand, which incapacitated him from using it, or attending to his business for some three months. The jury awarded plaintiff one thousand dollars by their verdict, and from this judgment appellant prosecutes this appeal. The testimony was conflicting, appellee here, plaintiff in the court below testified that while a passenger on the train of appellant company, said train stopped at Anding, his old home, and while this was not his destination, he went out on the platform, to see if he could see any of his people. A lady boarded the train, and the conductor, who was standing on the ground, assisted her up the steps, while plaintiff took her grip. "I was standing on the front of the ladies' coach, and as she mounted the steps the signal was given for the train to start, and the train gave such a jerk, it throwed me against the facing of the car door, and in that jerk it jerked the door to on my hand before I knew it, it was done so quick I caught by the door to keep from falling, and it slammed the door to on me, and I had to put the grip down to open the door to get my hand out. My little finger was caught in the door, and was so severely injured that I was unable to attend to my business for three months." Other witnesses testified to the same effect.

For the defendant Walter Hosford testified that he was the conductor on the train in question, and that a traveling man got on the train at Anding, and immediately after this traveling man entered the car, the door of the car slammed, and he heard Mr. Kelly grunt, and saw that he had mashed his finger. The train was standing still at the time that Mr. Kelly had his finger mashed by the slamming of the door, he was positive. This door closed from the inside, and could not have closed itself, because the train was standing still. The door opened from the inside, so if the car was jerked and the door wasn't fastened, it would jerk the door open. In his judgment the door could not have swung any way except to the inside, and opened it.

The court gave the following instructions:

No. 3. "The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that plaintiff was a passenger upon defendant's passenger train, and was injured by the door of the car in defendant's passenger train being suddenly slammed to by the sudden jerk or starting of the train, or because same not properly opened and properly latched, and that plaintiff was without any negligence on his part, then it is the duty of the jury to find for the plaintiff, and assess his damages at such an amount as the jury may find from the evidence will compensate him for the injury, the pain suffered, and time lost on account of said injury doctor's bill, and medical bills incurred by and because of said injury, and all other damages of every kind sustained by plaintiff because of the aforesaid injury."

No. 4. "The court instructs the jury that the railroad company is not responsible for an injury to a passenger which is the result of a mere accident or casualty, where there is no negligence on the part of the railroad company or its agents and if they find from the evidence that the injury to plaintiff's finger happened by accident, without any fault on part of defendant or any of its employes, then the plaintiff cannot recover in this action, and they will find for the defendant."

Case affirmed.

Mayes &amp Longstreet, for appellant.

In this case we have a conflict of testimony on every material point. Briefly summed up, the claim of appellee is that while he was standing on the platform, assisting a lady, the train suddenly started with a jolt sufficient to throw him against the door, and that this same jolt was sufficiently severe to slam the door on his finger.

Appellant's theory is that the train had not started, and that the passenger who embarked at Anding, a traveling man, and who went in ahead of Mr. Kelly, slammed the door on Mr. Kelly thereby catching and bruising his finger. And that the physical facts, the construction of the door, support this theory.

The facts being thus in dispute, the matter was of course submitted to the jury, of which we have no complaint to make. However, the third instruction given for the plaintiff below was, we submit, erroneous in that it did not properly announce the law, and constituted reversible error.

The instruction in question was as follows:

"The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that plaintiff was a passenger upon defendant's passenger train, and was injured by the door of the car in defendant's passenger train being suddenly slammed to by the sudden jerk or starting of the train, or because same not properly opened and properly latched, and that plaintiff was without any negligence on his part, then it was the duty of the jury to find for the plaintiff and assess his damages at such an amount as the jury may find from the evidence will compensate him for the injury, the pain suffered, the time lost on account of said injury, doctor's bill and medical bills incurred by and because of said injury, and all other damage of every kind sustained by plaintiff because of the aforesaid injury."

We call the attention of the court to the fact that two separate and distinct grounds are stated, upon either of which the jury was charged to find for plaintiff. The first ground was the sudden slamming of the door by the sudden jerk or starting of the train; and the second was because door was not properly opened, or properly latched.

The second proposition is distinctly stated, and therefore constitutes a separate and distinct ground on which the jury was authorized to find for plaintiff.

In other words, under this instruction the jury was told to find for the plaintiff if it believed that plaintiff was injured by the door of the car not being properly opened and properly latched, if plaintiff was without negligence. We submit that this is not the law. Under such an instruction, while the jury might accept the conductor's testimony, it might still find for plaintiff, if it believed the door was not properly opened and fastened. In other words, it might well have believed that the door was closed by the traveling man on appellee's finger. But because this door was not properly opened and latched, plaintiff was entitled to recover.

It is to be remembered that this was a case where there was a square conflict of testimony on material facts. It was a case to puzzle a jury. The plaintiff and his wife testified to one state of facts, and the conductor to another. Under the conductor's testimony, the company was clearly not liable. In such a case it is vitally important, it is essential, that the instructions be clear, accurate, intelligible, and, furthermore, correctly announce the law, so as to furnish a true guide for the jury.

It is a matter of common knowledge, and it is in harmony with the natural impulses and acts of man, that where a jury is baffled and perplexed as to a case, where the truth seems almost impossible of definite ascertainment, it turns to the instructions and seeks to find there some solution, some key to the problem, some meaning or interpretation which will throw light on the question at issue.

The experience of every lawyer shows the readiness with which a jury catches at any suggestion in an instruction in a closely balanced case, whereby it may decide the case, and shift the responsibility of the decision from itself to the court. It is then that the instructions must stand the test of clearness, accuracy and correctness, so that the jury may not be misled.

Can the instruction in question stand such a test? We submit that it cannot. For example, suppose that some of the jury refused to credit this stale and ancient claim of appellee's, or even that they were merely in doubt as to same. By reference to this instruction they found that they were charged to find for the plaintiff, not merely if they believed that the jolting and jarring had caused the door to jerk, but if they believed that the injury was by the door being improperly opened and latched, without reference to the jolting and jarring of the train. They would recall that appellee testified that he believed that the door was not properly opened, and appellant's witness did not deny this. Hence if this traveling man, passing through the door, had found it insecurely fastened or swinging back and forth, and had closed it on appellee's finger, appellant would not be liable, according to this charge, as, had this traveling man found it securely latched he would not have slammed it, and thereby caused the injury. While under such conditions...