85 Cal. 63 | Cal. | 1890
Action for personal injuries. Verdict and judgment for $1,750 in favor of plaintiff, from which defendant appeals, the case coming up on the judgment roll, which includes the evidence embodied in a bill of exceptions.
On the trial it was admitted that the defendant, a corporation, owns and operates a motor-railroad running from San Bernardino to Colton. The proof shows that the road is operated with cars propelled by steam-power.
Two points are presented and insisted on upon the appeal: 1. That the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a nonsuit; 2. That the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict.
1. It was shown on behalf of plaintiff that on the morning of June 30, 1888, she entered the car of defendant at Ban Bernardino as a passenger to be transported thence to Colton. Owing to some difficulty in making change, her fare was not paid in advance, but it was paid at Colton, before she attempted to alight from the car. No question is made but that she was a regular passenger, and had all the rights of transportation, care, and protection that is due to any passenger traveling by railroad. The road of defendant enters Colton from the north by way of Conn Street. At the northwest corner of Conn and Front streets, commonly called Thompson’s corner, was situate the office of the company for the town of Colton, and that corner was proved and in argument
When plaintiff and her escort entered the car at San Bernardino they notified the conductor that they wished to get off at Thompson’s corner. Upon approaching that point, observing that the train did not begin to slow down, they rose from their seats and signaled the conductor, when he asked them if they wished to get off there. To this they answered in the affirmative, but by that time the car had passed that station, and the conductor said he would stop at the next station, which was the platform aforesaid. The train, however, did not stop at the platform, but was run forward and onto the side-track, where the engine was uncoupled, without stopping, and run forward, as usual, onto the main track west of the switch, the coach being stopped by the brakeman about midway between the two ends of the switch or side-track. At that point there was no platform on either side for the accommodation of passengers getting off or onto the cars. The coach was divided into two compartments by a dead-wall crossing the same from side to side. The plaintiff and conductor were in the rear or most easterly compartment, and the brakeman on the platform at the west end of the car. From the rear compartment no person could see anything to the west, on either the main or side tracks. As the coach came to a stop, the plaintiff rose, and, having in the mean time found some coin, paid the conductor her fare, receiving some small change in return, and immediately went to the rear door and alighted on the south side, her home being across all the tracks of both roads, on the south side, and some little distance therefrom. Her escort stopped a moment to speak to the conductor, and then followed her. As he started to step down from the platform, by leaning forward and looking outside the
The evidence presenting this state of facts, at the close of plaintiff’s case in chief, defendant moved for a non-suit, on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove a sufficient case for a jury; that the evidence failed to show negligence on the part of the defendant; and on the further ground that the evidence did show contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, which was the proximate cause of the injury she received. The court denied the motion, and defendant excepted.
There was no error in denying this motion. The evidence tending, as it did, to prove the material allegations of the complaint, it was a proper case for the jury. (Alvarado v. Dé Celis, 54 Cal. 588; Leahy v. S. P. R. R. Co.,
The cases cited by appellant in support of the motion are not parallel cases. They are, most of them, if not all, cases of strangers or persons acting independently, and having no relation to the defendant, — cases of persons toward whom the defendant owed no duty other than that which all persons owe to each other under like circumstances of meeting by chance,— not cases involving the duties and obligations of a carrier to a passenger. Carriers owe more than an ordinary duty to their passengers (Jamison v. S. J. & S. C. R. R. Co., supra); and negligence cannot be imputed to a passenger, such as this plaintiff was, for that she did not anticipate culpable negligence on the part of the carrier. She had a right to act on the presumption that the employees of the defendant would use the degree of care which persons of ordinary prudence are accustomed to employ under the same or similar circumstances. (Robinson v. W. P. R. R. Co., 48 Cal. 421.) In this case the defendant had negligently and wrongfully carried the plaintiff beyond and away from all its usual stopping-places, where it was accustomed to receive or discharge passengers, into what was practically its
2. We have carefully examined the evidence, and find that there is evidence to support the verdict. Indeed, on all the most important points in the case, it seems to be without substantial conflict. The judgment cannot therefore be disturbed on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Woeks, J., Patebson, J., McFaeland, J., and Shabpstein, J., concurred.