Sweet v. Louisville Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1902
• Citation: 113 Ky. 15,67 S.W. 4
• Parties: SWEET v. LOUISVILLE RY. CO. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

67 S.W. 4

113 Ky. 15

SWEET v. LOUISVILLE RY. CO. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 12, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county, law and equity division.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Annie Sweet against the Louisville Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Augustus E. Willson and Morris B. Gifford, for appellant.

Fairleigh Straus & Eagles, Kohn, Baird & Spindle, and J. H. Hazelrigg for appellee.

O'REAR J.

Appellant was a passenger on appellee's street railway on the evening of July 4, 1899. It was dark when the car reached its destination. The cars were stopped at or near the usual street crossing. In attempting to alight, appellant fell severely injuring her ankle. She complains of appellee charging it with negligence in stopping the car at a point where the steps she was to use in alighting were just over a hole or unusual depression in the street, and in not warning her of the danger before she stepped from the car. The evidence disclosed that the street in question was a macadam road. It had become so worn at this particular point that a depression was formed of two or three feet in length, and six inches deep. It was at the edge of the appellee's track and so near it that one stepping from the car would be apt to step into it. It was easily to be seen in the light. At the close of the evidence for appellant a peremptory instruction to find for the defendant was given. For appellee it is argued that the street at the point in question was under the exclusive control of the city, which alone had either the duty or the right to make repairs, and that appellee merely undertook to safely carry appellant to any desired point on its line, and to allow her to leave the car at any customary stopping place, such as at street crossings. It is stated, and it seems to be true, that a different duty attaches to street railway and to steam railway operators in respect to furnishing safe places for discharging their passengers. The latter must furnish such, while the former is under no such obligation, but discharges its passengers at convenient points along the streets it traverses. Booth, St. Ry. Law, § 326. If the street at the place of discharging the passenger presents a dangerous condition to one alighting there, and such danger is obvious to the passenger, the carrier is not liable to him for...