33 F.2d 27 (8th Cir. 1929), 8292, Wawin Coal Co. v. Orr

Docket Nº:8292.
Citation:33 F.2d 27
Party Name:WAWIN COAL CO. v. ORR.
Case Date:May 06, 1929
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 27

33 F.2d 27 (8th Cir. 1929)




No. 8292.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 6, 1929

Page 28

George Hoke and Tracy J. Peycke, both of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

Donald M. Davis, Bergman Richards, and Snyder, Gale & Richards, all of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

Before STONE, LEWIS, and COTTERAL, Circuit Judges.

COTTERAL, Circuit Judge.

Robert E. Orr was injured on Marquette avenue in Minneapolis, Minn., when on alighting from the rear exit of a north-bound street car which had stopped and opened its gates to discharge and receive passengers he slipped and fell on the steps or street, and his foot was run over by a truck of the Wawin Coal Company, which had followed the car and was passing the place of the injury. Immediately ahead of this car was another car on the avenue at its intersection with Eighth street. There were posts creating a safety zone opposite the forward car and extending only a part of the way alongside of the car in which Orr was a passenger or not entirely back to the front of that car. Orr sued both the street car company and the coal company to recover damages for his injury. At the close of his evidence, a verdict was directed for the street car company. The trial proceeded against the coal company resulting in a verdict in Orr's favor, and judgment being rendered thereon, the coal company brings this appeal, assigning as error the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict for the company and these portions of the charge to the jury:

'The claim on the part of the plaintiff is that the driver was negligent--driver of the truck was negligent in two or more ways, First he was negligent so the plaintiff says, in driving where he did at all, at the time and place in question, the claim being he should have stopped some distance back of the street-car-- that he should have anticipated people were likely to alight therefrom, and that by driving where he did at the time that he did, he did not have due regard for the rights of those who might be alighting from the car.'

'If the street-car was not stopped at one of these safety zones, if the safety zone was really nearly a car length ahead, and if the driver of the truck should have known that there was no safety there, he should, of course, have had in mind whether or not, from the location of the car, it was to be...

To continue reading