Metropolitan Transit System, Inc. v. Burton , 103 Ga. App. 688 ( 1961 )

Nichols, Judge.

In support of its contentions the defendant contends that the allegations of the petition fail to allege any' actionable negligence because it was not alleged-that the defendant had control 'of the “loading area" and because it was not ’"ged -that the defendant had reason to anticipate the unruly tc .duct of other passengers.

In support of such contentions the defendant cites cases wherein the injuries occurred on sidewalks or streets hot under the control of the defendant and cases where the defendant had no reason to anticipate that the crowd was disorderly or violent. Such cases do.not apply to the facts in the present case.

The allegations in the present case show that the defendant had, in addition to the operator of the bus, a uniformed agent employee on duty at the corner where the plaintiff boarded the bus, that such agent employee directed the plaintiff and others waiting on such bus to enter'the same by the rear door, that under such instructions “the plaintiff proceeded to enter and mounted the steps of the bus’.’ and while entering the bus was pushed from the rear by other passengers, knocked to' the floor of the bus, and then trampled and stepped upon by other passengers.

After the plaintiff entered the bus by ascending the steps of such bus-she was on premises controlled by the defendant, so that cases dealing with injuries upon sidewalks' and streets are' not applicable. The defendant owed the plaintiff the duty of exercising extraordinary care for her safety from the time she boarded such bus and not just when such bus was in motion. See Georgia Ry. & Power Co. v. Murphy, 28 Ga. App. 173 (110 S. E. 680), where it was said: “It is the duty of a street-railway com-' pany to use extraordinary diligence to afford protection to passengers from any injuiy which might reasonably be anticipated as arising from outside sources. Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co. v. Boyle, 115 Ga. 836 (42 S. E. 242, 59 L. R. A. 104); Holly v. Atlanta Street Railroad, 61 Ga. 215 (34 Am. Rep. 97); Hillman v. Ga. Railroad &c. Co., 126 Ga. 814 (8 Ann. Cas. 222). Where the servants of the company in charge of a car carrying passengers have knowledge that a crowd of persons daily assemble at a certain time near the terminus of the line for the purpose of becoming passengers on the returning cars of the company, and that such persons stampede to board the cars before the cars reach the terminus, and overcrowd the entrances to the cars, and struggle and push against one another in their efforts to enter the car’s, the servants of the company in charge of the car, have from such knowledge, reason to anticipate that a female passenger on the car, having no knowledge of such custom, who has arisen from her seat and gone upon the platform for the purpose of alighting, will be injured by the crowd attempting to board the car in the customary manner, and where the servants fail to use the required diligence to protect her, and she is, as a result of such failure, injured by the crowd when struggling and fighting to board the car, the company has failed to afford her the protection to which she is legally entitled.” This court cannot say, as a matter of law, that the failure to take any action to protect the plaintiff either from being pushed to the floor of the bus or to protect her from being stepped on after being pushed down was not a lack of extraordinary care. The petition was not subject to general demurrer and the allegations of negligence, demurred to as conclusions, were not subject to special demurrer, and the judgment of the trial court overruling such demurrers was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Judges concur, except Felton, C. J., who dissents, and Hberhardt, J., not participating.