Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. Napheys

1. While it is the duty of a railroad company to provide safe and convenient means of ingress and egress to and from the cars, it is equally the duty of passengers to use the means thus provided with reasonable circumspection and care. 2. 1'he general rule is, that one who alleges negligence as the basis of a claim for damages, is bound to prove the fact alleged and the extent of the injury, if more than nominal damages are claimed ; but in some cases, slight proof only is required to justify a presumption of negligence. 3. If a passenger seated in a railroad car is injured by a collision, or by a defect in any part of the machinery, a prima facie case of negligence is established, and the onus of disproving it is cast upon the company. 4. Where a train has come to a stop and a passenger, on stepping from the lowest step of the platform of the ears to the ground, fractures her kneecap, without any apparent external cause, no presumption of negligence is raised.

•Error to the court of Common Pleas of Monroe county: Of July Term 1878. No. 149. Trespass on the case by George D. Napheys and wife against the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, to recover damages for injuries to the wife of plaintiff, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. The facts were, in substance as follows: The plaintiff and his wife were passengers on a train of defendants. The train was destined for Stroudsburg, where it arrived in safety. Mrs. Napheys was assisted by her husband to alight from the car. On stepping down from the lowest step of the car platform, she advanced her left foot first to the ground, leaning her right foot upon the step and while in that position, without any apparent cause, her right knee-cap snapped and was fractured. There was no slipping or stumbling, or any external injury by a blow or force of any kind. In consequence of the injury Mrs. Napheys was confined to the house for about a year, suffering much pain, and the injured limb was permanently weakened. On the part of the defendant there was evidence that prior to the accident Mrs. Napheys had dislocated the knee-cap of her left knee while walking on the street; that she was confined to the house for several weeks by reason of the injury; that she was lame for some time thereafter, and that at the time of the injury at Stroudsburg, she was still wearing an elastic knee-cap over the left knee under the advice of her physician. Much testimony was given by defendant showing that the height of the lower step of the platform was not greater than that of the platforms of the cars in use by the principal railroads in the United States, and not so great as those used on several roads. The evidence, which was not contradicted, showed that the height from the top of the lower step to the rail was sixteen inches, and to the ground where Mrs. Napheys alighted not more than twenty-one inches, and probably not more than nineteen. A number of railroad conductors and ticket agents on other roads, were examined, who testified that a distance of twenty-one inches to step from the cars was a perfectly safe distance for travellers to descend; that elevated platforms, especially platforms between tracks, were more dangerous than no platforms at all, and were being removed from all the principal roads. They testified also that the steps ordinarily in use varied from nineteen to twenty-six inches to the ground, and that although they had car.ried and delivered many millions of passengers they never knew of a single instance in which the fracture of a knee-pan or any other injury occurred by stepping from the cars they were running. It was in evidence also that many- thousands of passengers had alighted at this very station and from the defendant’s own cars without a single accident of any description to the passengers. And further, that after this occurrence the defendant adopted a new style of platform, called the Miller platform, which is four to six inches higher from its lowest step to the ground than that of the car from which Mrs. Napheys stepped, and that this platform was still in use, and not a single accident had ever happened to any passenger alighting therefrom. The train on which the plaintiffs rode was a northern bound train, and it was shown that all northern bound trains passed the Stroudsburg station on the outer track, which was furthest from the depot, and that ten thousand persons annually alight from northern bound trains at the place, where Mrs. Napheys alighted, without a single accident 'having occurred. The defendant also called carriage-makers, livery-stable keepers, and others, who testified that the height of the step from carriages, omnibusses, farm-wagons, and other similar vehicles was from eighteen to twenty-four inches, and that no such accident had been known to happen to any person descending therefrom. In rebuttal, the plaintiff gave evidence to show that the height, from the step to the ground, was from twenty-five to twenty-nine inches. The plaintiff presented the following points, to which are appended the answers of the court: 1. The defendant was not only bound to convey Mrs. Napheys safely to her destination, but to furnish her with a safe and convenient means of leaving the car, if human foresight and prudence could so provide, and in determining what is a safe and convenient mode of egress • the criterion is not what is the custom on other roads, nor how much strain other people have sustained in various ways without injury, but what did the safety and convenience of Mrs. Napheys require. Ans. “The first clause of this point is affirmed. As to the second clause, while the custom on other roads, or the amount of strain other people have sustained, are not the criterion by which to determine what is a safe and convenient mode of egress, in this particular case, yet such custom of other roads is evidence for the jury to consider in passing .upon the question of negligence of the defendant in the case trying.” (First assignment of error.) 2. A carrier of passengers is bound to the utmost degree of care and prudence in providing means of egress from its cars. Any want of such care and prudence renders the company liable to respond in damages for an injury resulting therefrom. Ans. “ Affirmed.” (Second assignment.) 3. That the defendants, as carriers, are bound to give secure access to, and egress from, their passenger cars, so that a passenger carefully descending from the cars may do so in safety, and if the jury believe that the height from the lower step of the car to the ground was so great that Mrs. Napheys, in attempting to descend with reasonable care, fractured her knee-cap in consequence of the height of the step, the defendant is liable for such damages as were sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the injury. Ans. “Affirmed.” (Third assignment.) 4. The proof in the case being uncontradicted that Mrs. Napheys, without any negligence on her part, received an injury in descending from the cars of the defendant, it raises the presumption prima facie that the defendant was guilty of negligence and the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show that it was not guilty of negligence. Ans. “ Negatired, for the reason that I cannot say that the evidence as to the negligence is uncontradicted.” (Fourth assignment.) 5. If the jury believe that Mrs. Napheys, without any negligence on her part, received an injury in descending from the cars of the defendants, the defendants were, prima facie, guilty of negligence and the burden of proof is upon them to show that they were not guilty of negligence. Ans. “Affirmed.” (Fifth assignment). Among defendant’s points was the following, with the answer of the court thereto: 6. If Mrs. Napheys was subject to any peculiar condition of the bones or body, which rendered her more liable to bony fracture than the generality of persons, the defendant was under no obligation to construct their cars or platforms with reference to such abnormal condition, and if the injury of Mrs. Napheys was produced in consequence of that condition, the defendant is not responsible for such result, and in that event there can be no recovery in this action. Ans. “ I cannot affirm this point. While I can assent to the first part of the proposition, I cannot affirm it as a whole, for the reason that though the facts should be as stated in the first clause, and that the accident would not have happened if she had not been in such condition of bones or body, yet the liability of the company depends upon the question of negligence, under the evidence and all the circumstances of the case.” (Sixth assignment.) In the general charge the court, Dreher, P. J., inter alia, said: “ Railroads for carrying passengers are not constructed for a particular class or size of persons. Large and small, lean and fleshy persons, those of large and those of small muscles and different temperaments, may travel, and railroad companies in constructing their roads and means of access to and egress from their cars are presumed to know that all such persons will travel on their road.” (Eighth assignment.) “It was argued, in behalf of the plaintiffs, that the injury to Mrs. Napheys occurred in consequence of the step to the platform of the car being too high from the ground. On the other hand, it is alleged by the defendant that the step was no higher than those in use by many other railroads, and not so high as some other companies use, and that the accident did. not result from any unusual height of the step. . The evidence upon the question of negligence •of the company, as respects the height of the step, is for the jury, and, in passing upon this question, you are to take into consideration the height of the steps in use by other railroad companies. The question is, whether the accident occurred from the negligence of the company alone. If it did, then the defendant is liable.. (Eleventh assignment.) “ In the case of Mrs. Napheys, that is, the suit in which she and her husband are joint plaintiffs for her use, the law has no fixed rule for assessment of damages. You should allow her such reasonable damages as under all the circumstances you may think she is entitled to, for the pain and suffering endured by her in consequence of the injury.” (Fourteenth assignment.) The verdict was for plaintiff for $2000. The defendant took this writ, among its assignments of error being those above noted, and that the court erred in not making an adequate presentation to the jury of the facts of the case, and in not explaining to them the meaning of negligence and contributory negligence as applicable to the circumstances of the case.