*1 Judgment and Jordan, JJ., reversed. Frankum concur. May 12, 1961.
Decided Fullbright Jr., Hart C. Duffey, Duffey, in error. T. Assistant Clary, Solicitor-General, Horace Chastine Parker, Solicitor-General, contra.
38624. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC.
BURTON. April Rehearing May Decided denied *2 Hugh Dorsey, Jr., Jr., M. Felton, Jule W. B. Adams, Charles Crenshaw, Hansell, Ware, Dorsey, Brandon in error. . Jr., H. Clokey, Sidney Rose,
Harold I. contra Judge. support the defendant contentions Nichols, contends any' fail to negligence alleged-that actionable it the defen- because was dant had control 'of “loading area" because
’"ged -that the defendant unruly passengers. tc .duct of other
In support of such contentions the defendant *3 cites wherein injuries the occurred on the sidewalks or streets under con- hot trol of the defendant and where the cases defendant had no reason anticipate to disorderly crowd was or violent. cases Such do.not apply present to the in the facts case. allegations in the had, case show that the employee to a operator bus, addition the of the agent uniformed on at duty plaintiff where the corner the the that boarded bus, agent employee such plaintiff directed the waiting and others such bus to by enter'the same under in- door, that such “the plaintiff proceeded structions to mounted the and steps pushed the entering of the bus was from bus’.’and the bus, by other the floor passengers, rear knocked to' of the and trampled stepped passengers. then upon other and plaintiff steps the the of by ascending
After entered bus the defendant, premises such so controlled bus-she was on the injuries that upon sidewalks' are' dealing with and streets plaintiff applicable. duty not The defendant owed the her extraordinary safety care for from time she exercising just boarded when such bus motion. See bus and was in Georgia Ry. (110 & Murphy, Power Co. 28 Ga. S. E. street-railway where it “It is the a com-' was said: diligence protection pas afford to extraordinary to pany to use might reasonably be any injuiy which sengers from Savannah, Florida Western outside sources. arising from (42 104); S. E. 59 R. A. Ga. 836 L. Co. v. Boyle, 97); Rep. Railroad, 61 Ga. Holly v. Atlanta Street Am. Co., 126 814 Ann. Cas. Hillman Ga. Railroad &c. Ga. carrying company charge car Where the servants of knowledge as daily a passengers have crowd near line for certain time the terminus of semble cars purpose becoming passengers returning stampede to the cars before board company, overcrowd the to terminus, the cars reach entrances push against one another efforts struggle in their cars, and car’s, charge to enter company the servants to female car, knowledge, from such car, custom, having knowledge no of such gone upon platform has arisen from her seat and purpose injured to attempting will alighting, be crowd manner, customary board car the servants required diligence protect fail her, to use she to is, injured result struggling of such failure, when fighting to board has failed afford protection her the which she is legally entitled.” This court law, cannot as a matter say, failure to take action protect pushed either being floor protect stepped being bus or to her being on after extraordinary not a lack of care. down was subject general negli demurrer and subject conclusions, were not gence, special demurred to as *4 judgment of the trial demurrer, overruling and the assigned. not error for demurrers was Judgment Judges concur, except the J., All Felton, C. affirmed. Hberhardt, dissents, J., participating. who dissenting. My Chief dissent this Judge, Felton, opinion not due of as to the to a what law but is difference due entirely petition. almost to a construction of the I do not agree negligence applies that the law to a situation of where there petition alleged If injury. is no the what the their conclusion would seem majority to construe majority’s construction. the it is under not be as far-fetched as “ your petitioner 6. That alleges follows: petition as stop designated regularly at a bus of bus awaited the arrival the of City in the Walton Streets at of Broad and the intersection your peti- bus the of the upon That arrival Georgia. 7. Atlanta, defendant, by agent employee of tioner was directed the regular uniform dressed in the place that was at the defendant in acting in behalf defendant scope of his and within defendant’s business furtherance point just at the at door located to board the bus employment, customarily door is bus, and which rear center of said rather than the defendant as an exit designated by regularly people at many That were said the bus. entrance 8. to- agent-employee bus, and the the arrival of said awaiting stop bus then the crowd there and directed defendant company acting your petitioner 9. That by rear door. enter bus agent-employee direction of upon instruction and steps the bus. proceeded enter and mounted entering engaged in said your petitioner thus was That force pushed jostled from the rear with such she vehicle, was enter the attempting to bus the influx of other It knocked to the floor thereof.” will door that was she alleged petitioner your bear repeating that entering engaged vehicle, was thus said connection proceeded paragraph 9, with she steps bus, pushed mounted means was she was standing step sidewalk bottom she steps bus. buses have two rear door and steps elevation these above the floor of bus. A construc- tion petition against pleader me be plainly must petitioner standing by somebody was sidewalk, or somebody sidewalk with with both feet one foot step foot the sidewalk and one on the bottom bus. I can see no foundation for the Under circumstances majority statement the cases cited the Transit injuries streets not occurred on sidewalks or Company, Company, do not facts in apply under control of to' the *5 693 be- principle difference absolutely no present case. There is is question The hereinafter cited. tween this circum- whether, but under the occurred injury not where the injury that an anticipated would have should carrier stances, me to be seems majority construction occur. on the inside occurred passenger
wrongdoing of fellow L. R. R. and 155 A. 1315 in A. L. annotations 32 bus. carrier- owned situations where the entirely with both deal almost carrier occurred. A places crowding where provided public side- crowding is on a but where cases, liable render a carrier in order to control, and the carrier no- walk has which on a sidewalk over crowding liable where there part of on the police control, some carrier has no absolutely crowding is anticipate injury from such carrier to Mass. 239 necessary. Co., Boston Elevated In Savickas v. de- assume without held: “If N. E. we 29), 226 was no evidence plaintiff passenger, a there was ciding While was evidence negligence of defendant. there number of large was at the accident purpose boarding for the pressed forward appears it ground, also plaintiff was car, and the congregated plaintiff where the crowd place which, or the injured public over was on a was street, it consequently it, authority; on control or had no the defendant pre- restrain the crowd failing negligent side it child under pushing vent on highway. The cases relied standing she was injured account of passengers have been where cars, conduct of station disorderly violent other subways applicable are not railway, street or in platforms, Pennsylvania Pa. Bright In R. Co., to the facts bar.” apparent it railroad that a Super. held: “When 188, it was unruly an crowd right or of control over company has no control property over or has property is not on it injured crush who is right control, contract company from the railroad recover crowd, cannot reasonably reason that could unexpected movement of guarded against unruly an or Wagner company.” Brooklyn the property of another Hts. Div. N. R. Y. S. Co., “guilty negligence” not in railroad was held of no “was *6 position assembling control the crowd” to and “was responsible police v. Transp. for In McMahan control.” Surface Corp., 859, N. 69 Y. S. 2d “well stated that rule is pushing settled that liability the carrier for no passage awaiting take there is no where, here, platform station or intending passengers waiting and are public over which Nothing street carrier has no control.” alleged dangerous this case to show it is more to enter back door the bus than front door and no attendant beyond uniformed is alleged door direction his the rear door. majority opinion single does not cite a case in support of ruling. its case, byis implication strongly cites one It more against position than a ruling would have been been if affirmatively reaching opposite stated conclusion. case, Murphy majority, cited liability of the carrier knowledge was based persons of the carrier that crowd of daily assembled at a certain near line, the terminus of the the purpose of becoming passengers on the cars stampeded persons such they board cars before car, and overcrowded the reached terminus entrances against one struggled another in their efforts had, enter the servants of the carrier cars, from anticipate that knowledge, female knowledge having custom, etc., no- be in would jured, inescapable etc. The seems that the conclusion against general special case deficient Transit failing Company demurrers in should alleged the facts petition. injury, alleged category into the bring The facts this class criminal persons unanticipated acts of criminal acts third liability. insulate the carrier While the third acts criminal, may actually not be are so they third criminal rule. analagous bring this within the closely as to act Line Co. v. 211 373 Godard, Atlantic Coast R. See also: Ga.
695
page
cited on
See also: Gos
(86
authorities
E. 2d
S.
(115
613);
App. 23
S. E. 2d
102 Ga.
Co.,
Atlantic Steel
sett v.
(115
2dE.
App.
&
102 Ga.
204
S.
Co.,
Kress
Covington v. S. H.
(99
2dE.
Corp.
Stanfield, 213 Ga.
440
S.
436,
v.
Oil
621); Gulf
(40
300,
(2)
Ga.
S. E.
Kinsel,
&
114
390
Andrews Co. v.
209);
Greyhound Lines,
v.
189
Daigrepont
Teche
Rep. 25);
St.
88 Am.
Weems,
217);
L.
Rivers v.
174,
2d
127 A.
R.
(7
Ga. 601
S. E.
Co.,
Ry.
v.
(69
756); Bowers
Southern
S. E. 2d
Ga.
784
208
783,
(73
Ellis, 55 Ga.
(3)
677);
E.
Gallovitch v.
App.
S.
10 Ga.
367
Co.,
Cab
Ga.
(191
Pinnell v. Yellow
77
384);
E.
App. 780
S.
Tramway
v.
(47 E.
See also: Weeks Denver
App.
S.
2d
73
Box Atlantic
R.
cit.;
v.
& B.
F.
Corporation, 108
2d 509
(48
Central
Co.
Co.,
427);
Ry.
S. E.
Ga.