The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1890-05-02
DEFINING THEIR DUTIES.
SUPREME COURT SETTLES AN
IMPORTANT SUIT.
Captain X. q, Scott Receivers Ihirty-five
Hundred Dollars. Damages Received by
the Richmond City Railway Company
n.,s, In, nj

pcals Of Virginia, Judge Drury a. Hinton
delivered the opinion Of the court in the case
Of the "Richmond City Railway Company
against Scott" The case came up on an
appeal from the Circuit Court of the city, in
which the Jury ascoriaiued the amount Of
damages at $500. Messrs. W. W. and B.
+. Crump represented Captain X. G. Scott,
the plaintiff, and Mr.. Wyndham II. Mere
lith the city railway. There was no dis
sent to the opinion Of Judge Hinton, which
confirms the opinion Of the lower court. and
reads as follows:
This is an action on the case. 10 recover
damages for injuries sustained by passon
ger from falling into an excavation WINE III
the act of dcbarking from a street car.
The defendant company owned and oper-
ated street or horse railway I'm several OF
the streets of the city OF Richmond. one OF
It's main lines ran on Main street when u
one of The principal thOrOu2hiares IN the city
And. in order To connect this line with liOi-
IVWoOd cemetery, which Is situated south %
Main street a branch line was run from that
street to Hollywood along LAUREL street. the
street leading from Main street to the latter
place.
Al the intersection ofthesc two lines AT the
corner Of Main and Laurel streets, the COM
pany transferred its passengers reaching thst
point on its Laurel street branch, without
additional fare. to its Main street cars run
nj ~ up Main street, or 10 It's cars. which
rrnuiug down Nain street, turned OF nj thls
corner into Laurel street north OF Main, ana
ran 10 and down Broad street.
Al the southwest corner Of these streets,
Main and Laurel. there was an cmploye q
the company stationed, 40 see that the pas
sengcrs desiring To continue their journey on
the Broad or Main street lines, were properly
At This point. the track Of the Laurel street
line ran out into Main street. Here, the cars
coming from Holly wood were stopped, Inc
horse was attached 10 the other end. and the
cars were then started back Oh Their return
trip. -
on the evening Of the injury. namely, Oh
The 20tn September, 1855, ditch or trench
existed in Main street. running along the
western side of the Laurel street tiact- lew
inches from the rail. about twelve or fourteen
feet m length, fifteen feet deep, and about
three feet in width.
This ditch. or excavation. had been made
by the CITY authorities for the purpose OF Ia, 70
ing a sewer. Its existence, however. was
known both 10 the transfer man Of the COM
pany and 10 the driver Of the laurel street
car who stopped every twenty or thitN
minutes. near enough TO it To see IL ana
notice its location.
Just after dark, the plaintiff, Mr.. scott.
a gentleman siXiy-eight years OF age. VINO
was on his way 10 the corner Of Fourth and
Broad street, took passage on the Laurel
street car. coming towards Main street, about
three squares south OF Main street. He pad
his fair and informed the driver that he was
going to transfer to a Broad street car.
There was only one other passenger on me
car. When The car reached MS regular STOP
ping place, the corner OF Main and Laurel
streets. the driver stopped II alOngside
the excavation. with the step OF the car pro
jecting slightly over the edge Of the eNcaNa-
ton.
The transfer-man came into the car just az
this iuncture. and was told by the driver that
there were two transfers.
The other passenger now arose and being
nearer the door went out INST, ana hllshled
on the east side OF the car.
Tie transler-man next went out on the pat
form, and by swinging himself around lh'
back Of the platform 10 me Solo ground lii
rear Of the car, as IL was Afterwards ua-
certained, succeeded In Mlghtlng on Inc
west side Of the car. And then the plantlll,
following the direction taken by the transfer
agent. but being ignorant OF the excavation
and Of the means adopted by the agent to
avoid IT, went ont on the west Side of the
platform Of the car, ana IN endeaN OilhE ~
step from and OF the car was precipitaied W
the bottom OF the excavation, ana was there
by seriously and perhaps permanently H.
ERRORS INSISTED UPON.
The Jury, evidently regarding the foregoing
ae tine facts established by the evidence.iu
the case, returned a verdict for 5000 IN
favor of The plaintiff. up IN which JUDI ent
was entered by the Circuit Court.
The company now insists that the circuit
Court erred in the following particulars,
viz:
laratlOn of the plaintn.
2nd. IN giving certain instructions ana lii
refusing certain others; and
3rd I'm rcfusin. 10 set aside the verdict aud
grant IL a new trial
no reason for the demurrer But, la This
court. II H. argued, and with apparent earn
estness. that the declaration is ihsulhcleHt %
not showing. by proper aNefmehl lial me
condition OF the pace where tine car stopped
was such. by reason of the absence OF prpi ci
safeguards or warning. rs 10 have made
such stopping negligence &c. IN Othtl
words, The defendant, overlooking the
marked distinction between the Two classes
OF cases. seeks to apply 10 a case growing Out
OF the relation of carrier ana passenger, q
rule iu regard 10 declarations IN cases against
municipal corporations. where me giaNaiIt h
4 the action Is the maintenance OF Il 'pDDlc
nuisance
THE DUTY OF CARRIERS.
But. rs 1 have intimated, this rule can
have no application 10 the present case.
Here. the action against the defendant Is ROT
founded upon negligence m allowing lhe ~
caVatiOn 10 remain without proper sue
guaras or lights. but IL arises out OF the duiA
which every carrier OF passengers is under
not 80 expose his passengers 10 any
danger in aligntin.. which can ne
avoided by tine exercise OF extreme
care and caution. In this case, the de-
clarafion after setting ont that the plainiill,
al the special instance and request OF the
defendant. became passenger on one oI IN e
defendant = street cais,pr cceds, 'ahd tLel'-
upOu II became and was the duty OF The salN
defendant 10 use due and proper care thii
he said plaintiff should be carried IN saii
railway, and safely landed and allowed safely
to alight at the intersection OF lAuI'l ~ 81
Main street." ''ict the sad defendant not
regarding H. duty in that behalf, did not Use
due and proper care for The suie carriage ana
landing and alightiug of the sald plalhilI'
but wholly neglected so 10 DO. anu WIN
gross negligence and utter rccklessncss Of
lis duty 10 said plaintiff, knowingly ana neg
ligeutlV. tO-Wii: on the cav ana year alpic-
said. stopped the said Goa "a or ear, wherein
the said plaintlif was "a passenger. on aIfiN-
Ing al the said regular and usual stopping
place al or near the said intersection OF au-
rel and Main streets, alongside OF trench OF
excavation In said Laurel street aDOua, To-
wit: twelve feet in length and hiteen feet
deep, the said defendant well knowing the
trench or excavation 10 he at that point so
that the step of the said car was directly over
The said trench or excavation; ana the SAID
plaintiff being ignorant Of the existence oi
said trench or excavation, IN eadeaNofihE 10
step from and of the said car. exercising due
care and caution. stepped and fell. without
fault on his part, directly IN SAID trench OF
excavation, and was precipitateu 10 the bot
tom thereOf&c." This was all that was nece,-
sary IN the declaration. IL sets out The rela-
ton of passenger and carrier between the
plaintiff and the defendant, the ciIcum-
stances out OF which the particular duty ow-
ing 10 the plaintiff arose. and the breach Of
that duty. The demurrer was, therefore,
properly Overruled.
CIRCUIT COURT RIGHT.
As to the second assignment Of error,
namely. that the Court erred I'm the matter OF
instructions, we think but little need he said.
Eight instructions were asked for by the de-
PENDANT, and of these, one, the seventh, was
given while the rest were refused. Tor the
reason. doubtless. that the lower court
thought, as we think, that none OF them
were relevant TO any evidence in the case,
and were. therefore, calculated 10 confuse
and mlsicad the jury.
As 10 the three instructions given by the
Court. there is nothing In either them that
could by possibility prejudice the case Of the
defendant. For the TWO last submit the
question of cOntributOry negligence, OF which
have been unable 10 find the slightest evil
deuce In the record, To the jury, whilst the
first instruction directs the jury 10 find for
the defendant, unless they believe from the
evidence that the injury TO the plantln was
OccasiOned solely by the negligence OF the
defendant.
We come now to the last question in the
case which is whether the Court erred IN re-
fusing TO award a new tial. And upon this
point there will be found no room Tor doubt
Hon min n raNaI N