Walker v. Connecticut Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Walker v. Connecticut Co.

100 A. 1063, 91 Conn. 606, 1917 Conn. LEXIS 57

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJune 1, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 A. 1063 (Walker v. Connecticut Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. Connecticut Co., 100 A. 1063, 91 Conn. 606, 1917 Conn. LEXIS 57 (Colo. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

*607 Per Curiam.

This appeal questions only the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment.

We do not hold that it is necessarily negligent for the defendant to permit ordinary hand-luggage to remain in the cross-aislés of an open trolley-car. The findings in this case show that the conductor was charged with special knowledge of a very aggravated condition of overcrowding by passengers and luggage in the particular cross-aisle in which the plaintiff sat, and that he paid no attention to her complaint about the suit case which prevented her feet from resting on the floor, and over which she afterward stumbled and fell. Because of this overcrowded condition of the cross-aisle the plaintiff was unable to let other passengers pass by who desired to alight, and in attempting to get out of their way was jostled and fell over the suit case out of the car.

The conductor ought, in the exercise of the high degree of care required of common carriers of passengers, to have known that the aggravated overcrowding of this cross-aisle created a condition dangerous to passengers who would have to use it in getting off the car, and to other passengers who by reason of such overcrowding might have to move out on to the running board to get out of their way. The negligence alleged was the overcrowding of the aisle by hand-luggage and passengers, and the jostling to which the plaintiff was subjected was a natural incident of the overcrowding.

There is no error.

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

*607 Per Curiam.

This appeal questions only the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment.

We do not hold that it is necessarily negligent for the defendant to permit ordinary hand-luggage to remain in the cross-aislés of an open trolley-car. The findings in this case show that the conductor was charged with special knowledge of a very aggravated condition of overcrowding by passengers and luggage in the particular cross-aisle in which the plaintiff sat, and that he paid no attention to her complaint about the suit case which prevented her feet from resting on the floor, and over which she afterward stumbled and fell. Because of this overcrowded condition of the cross-aisle the plaintiff was unable to let other passengers pass by who desired to alight, and in attempting to get out of their way was jostled and fell over the suit case out of the car.

The conductor ought, in the exercise of the high degree of care required of common carriers of passengers, to have known that the aggravated overcrowding of this cross-aisle created a condition dangerous to passengers who would have to use it in getting off the car, and to other passengers who by reason of such overcrowding might have to move out on to the running board to get out of their way. The negligence alleged was the overcrowding of the aisle by hand-luggage and passengers, and the jostling to which the plaintiff was subjected was a natural incident of the overcrowding.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A. 1063, 91 Conn. 606, 1917 Conn. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-connecticut-co-conn-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack