Cartlich v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.

Decision Date02 March 1908
Citation108 S.W. 584,129 Mo. App. 721
PartiesCARTLICH v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; A. L. Cooper, Special Judge.

Action by Viola Cartlich against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John H. Lucas and F. G. Johnson, for appellant. Borland, Goodwin & Pew, for respondent.

JOHNSON, J.

Plaintiff was a passenger on an electric street car operated by defendant on its Holmes street line in Kansas City, and was injured while attempting to alight from the car at Twenty-Ninth and Holmes streets, a regular stopping place. She alleges in her petition that her injury was the result of the negligent failure of defendant to hold the car stationary a sufficient time for her to accomplish her departure in safety. She recovered a verdict and judgment in the sum of $1,500, and defendant appealed.

The negligence charged in the petition is "that the car stopped for plaintiff to alight, and while this plaintiff, in the exercise of proper care and caution, was in the act of alighting from the rear platform of said car to the ground, said defendant negligently and carelessly started said car in motion, and threw this plaintiff with great force and violence to the ground; that as said car moved past plaintiff while plaintiff was in the act of falling, and when the car had been so negligently and carelessly set in motion by defendant, the iron-shod bumper on the rear of said car, which projected out some 8 or 10 inches beyond the side of said car, struck this plaintiff with great force and violence on the left hip, wounding and lacerating the plaintiff, and throwing her with increased force and violence against the ground; that defendant well knew the position that plaintiff was in when it started said car, and said injuries were wholly due to the negligence and carelessness of said defendant, its officers, agents, and employés, in operating said car, and in starting the same while plaintiff was in the act of alighting."

The answer contains a general denial, and the further defense "that, if plaintiff received any injuries at the time mentioned in said petition, the same were caused by plaintiff's own fault and negligence."

It is argued by defendant with much earnestness that the court should have peremptorily directed a verdict in its favor on the ground that plaintiff failed to adduce substantial evidence tending to show negligence on the part of defendant in the respects alleged. It is conceded in effect that plaintiff's own testimony does tend to support her allegations; but it is urged that, since it is uncorroborated by any other witness, and is contradicted by the testimony of 7 witnesses introduced by defendant, 5 of whom appear to be wholly disinterested, it should be rejected as unworthy of belief under the principles followed by this court in Empey v. Cable Co., 45 Mo. App. 422, and recently in Lehnick v. Railway, 118 Mo. App. 611, 94 S. W. 996. The injury occurred at about 8 o'clock in the evening of November 17, 1903. Plaintiff was the only passenger on the car. She testified in part: "I got on the car at Twenty-Third and Holmes streets, and told the conductor I wanted to get off at Twenty-Ninth. I asked him the time. I says, `About what time is it?' and he says, `Just a few minutes of 8.' I says: "Then I will be home by 8.' When the car got to Twenty-Ninth and Holmes streets I motioned to him and he nodded his head for me to get off. I got up and went up to the back platform, and he was standing right by the side of me, looking at me, and the car had stopped suddenly, and he nodded his head it was all right. Just as I stepped off it started suddenly, and I received a terrible blow. Then I was unconscious for the time being until they came, and they started to pick me up and carry me, and I screamed with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Scott v. American Zinc, Lead and Smelting Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 1915
    ...by him, yet if the admitted physical facts and circumstances corroborate him, the verdict is sufficiently supported. Cartlich v. Railroad, 129 Mo.App. 721. (3) demurrer to the evidence admits every material fact proven, and every reasonable inference which may be drawn from the testimony to......
  • Uetz v. Skinner
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 16, 1923
    ...to argument and illustration. "Preponderance of the evidence" is defined in Cartlich v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 129 Mo.App. 721, 108 S.W. 584, 108 S.W. 584. It was said in Tucker v. Carter, , 211 S.W. 138, that the words "preponderance" and "preponderate" used in instructions are well known to ju......
  • Scott v. American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 1915
    ...of law, that plaintiff failed to produce substantial evidence of the existence of the negligence charged. Cartlich v. Street Ry. Co., 129 Mo. App. loc. cit. 724-728, 108 S. W. 584. As in the case just cited, the physical facts and circumstances surrounding the injury very strongly corrobora......
  • Sparkman v. Wabash Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 8, 1915
    ... ... was entitled to a verdict. [See Deuchler v. Insurance ... Co., 51 Mo.App. 154; Cartlich v. Met. St. Ry ... Co., 129 Mo.App. 721, 729, 108 S.W. 584.] ...          We ... conclude, therefore, that the court should not have set ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT