The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-10-20
MRS. IONNONE
LOSES her CASE
Court SuStdinS Demurrer Of
Consolidated Railroad.
HER HUSBAND WAS KILLED.
Thrown Under Wheels Of Car BY Sudden
Stopping and Starting Of Trains.
WAS NOT A PASSENGER, COURT SAYS.
His Dsah Was Due 10 ihe kct Of Fellow Ssnanl
and lhs Railroad Company IS, Therefore,
Not Responsible
WAS NOT A PASSENGER, COURT SAYS.

The defendants demurrer in the case
of Annina Ionnone VS.. New York. New
Haven and Hartford Railroad company
has been sustained by the appellate
court. The opinion which was handed
down today is as follows:
The plaintiff sues 10 recover damages
for the loss OF life Of her husband, who
was killed on the defendants road in
Providence. November 2S, 1898. The de-
claration alleges that the deceased, on
the date named. had been i'm the em-
ploy of defendant. his work being the
removal OF snow from the tracks and
roadbed Of the company: that having
completed his work for the day he was
invited. with other shOVellers. TO ride
upon a certain car belonging TO the de-
fendant from the Doint where they had
finished their labor % another point A
mile or two distant and adjacent to
the place of the abode OF the deceased:
that he accepted the invitation and
boarded the car. 70 be carried over this
distance. The breach Of duty alleged
Is that the train. was carelessly man
aged and controlled. and while moving
forward was suddenly. without notice
or warning. stopped and started back
with a jolt or Jerk whereby the deceased
was thrown under the wheels Of the
fiat car on which he was riding and
received the injuries resulting in his
death.
GROUND FOR DEMURRER.
The defendant has demurred to the
declaration and contends. in support OF
the demurrer. that the case shows that
the deceased received his injuries by
the negligence OF a fellow servant. The
plaintiff on the other hand contends
that, under the facts set up in the
declara tions. the deceased was a pas
senger at the time Of the accident. and
not an employe and hence that the
fellow servant doctrine has no applica-
tion. She argues that the relation OF
carrier and passenger was established
between his intestate and the defend
ant by the invitation extended 10 him
when his days work was done TO ride
on the train 10 place near his home,
and that the intestate's work being
done he was not 10 be considered at the
time he received his injuries. as in the
service of the defendant.
THE declaration does not aver that
the deceased paid anything FOR his
transportation. nor that any reduction
was TO be made by the defendant from
his wages on that account. or that he
was paid a les sum by reason of his
transportation than he would otherwise
have been paid.
CARRIED GRATUITOUSLY.
"The plaintiff does not claim that any
such fact existed, but argues that it
was a case OF gratu.tous carriage, and
insists that the deceased was none the
less a passenger, because he was carried
gratutously. We do not think. how
ever. that the facts set up in the de-
claration are sufficient to warrant the
reference that the deceased was pas
senger.
"The CARRYING Of the deceased after
his days WORK was done, TO point
near his home, Is we think, TO be re-
garded. not as creating the relation oi
a passenger. but rather privilege incl
dental TO his contract Of service. grant
ed TO him oy the defendant OF which ne
availed himself TO facilitate his return
TO his home. and that il was a privilege
accorded to him merely by reason OIL
his contract Of service.
"The cases cited by the plalntlu are
cases Of passengers carried gratultouSII
anl not cases of employees 81 carried
Demurrer sustained and case remit
| ted 70 the common pleas division foi
| further proceedings"
David s. Baker and Lewis \. water
man were counsel for the railroad com
| pany.