Pitard v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Pitard v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.

45 So. 943, 120 La. 925, 1908 La. LEXIS 592

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 17, 1908

DocketNo. 16,791

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 So. 943 (Pitard v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pitard v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 45 So. 943, 120 La. 925, 1908 La. LEXIS 592 (La. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

BREAUX, O. J.

Plaintiff was injured while attempting to get on board of one of -defendant’s cars.

For the injury alleged he claims damages in the sum of $21,158.

The place of the accident was Canal street near the corner of Hagan avenue in this city. The time was the 29th day of September, 1906, between the hours of 5' and 6 p. m., nearer 6.

In attempting to board the train the plaintiff grasped with his right hand the handle bar of the rear platform of the last or second car.

The train was made up of one coach and trailer. It was one of the West End trains.

At the moment that plaintiff was attempting to board the car (he stepped to and on the lower step, but did not succeed in getting to the upper or second step), the car started with a jerk. He was thrown with force against the step of the car, and carried several feet, when he lost his footing entirely, and was thrown violently to the ground.

Plaintiff’s account is that when he attempted to step on to the car it was running slowly, and had come near to a standstill, but instead of stopping it suddenly started again, causing the jolt before mentioned, which resulted in throwing him off.

The proof shows beyond question that he received very painful injuries; a terrific contusion of the right knee, from which, we are informed, he had not entirely recovered. He still feels the painful effects. He was conveyed to his home and confined to his bed for many weeks; received medical attention ; and after leaving his bed he was confined to his home for a number of weeks.

Defendant denies liability, and charges that plaintiff’s negligence was the cause of the injury, and that he has no one to blame for it but himself; that he was imprudent in attempting to board a train while- in motion.

We will state at the outset the city of New Orleans through its counsel has adopted rules. They direct the company to stop its cars on Canal street at Carrollton and again at Hagan avenue. As to the latter place, the cars are to stop only when hailed to get on or when passengers wish to get out of the cars.

The ordinance provides a punishment in case an employs violates this ordinance. He is subject to a fine or imprisonment.

Plaintiff in this instance hailed the car, but it is by no means certain that the motorman saw him.

A disputed point of some importance is whether plaintiff was standing at the head of the crossing on the river side of Hagan avenue, or about midway between the wood side crossing and the river side crossing.

Plaintiff in his petition avers that he was standing at the proper place; that is, at the river corner of Canal and Hagan avenue on the right of the West End track.

But the witnesses do not agree as to the place at which he was. There are witnesses who state that it is as averred in his petition; that is, at the river side crossing.

But plaintiff testified that he was standing about the point indicated by the figure 2 on the sketch annexed. He is certainly the best judge, and knows best where he was standing.

We accept his statement. Of course, as he states he was at the point “2” he could not have been at the place marked “1” on the plat annexed, where the petition alleges he was. It follows .then that he was standing about midway of Hagan ¿venue.

This avenue is said to be the widest in the city of New Orleans.

It was at that place that plaintiff hailed [931]*931the car. At that distance from the stopping place of the ear, it cannot very well be taken as sufficient notice to stop for a passenger.

[929]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI