Anderson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Ellison
• Citation: Anderson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 141 S.W. 461, 159 Mo. App. 449 (Mo. App. 1911)
• Decision Date: 20 November 1911
• Parties: ANDERSON v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.

141 S.W. 461

159 Mo. App. 449

ANDERSON v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 20, 1911.

Rehearing Denied December 14, 1911.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 930)—VERDICTS— PRESUMPTION.

After a verdict for plaintiff, all the evidence in his behalf must be accepted as true,

and all reasonable inferences for his benefit should be drawn therefrom.

2. CARRIERS (§ 315)—INJURY TO PASSENGER— ACTIONS—PLEADINGS—PROOF.

Where the petition alleged that plaintiff was a passenger, and was thrown upon the streets through the negligence of the carrier's servants by starting up the car with a sudden jerk as she was preparing to alight, such averments are not allegations that the car had come to a stop and was then started, and it could be shown that the starting with a rapid jerk was after the car had slowed down as if to stop.

3. CARRIERS (§ 333)—INJURIES TO PASSENGER —CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

Where a passenger on a street car, after signaling for a stop, went to the platform to alight when the car which was slowing down, stopped, she was not guilty of negligence for the car company permitted persons to ride on platforms and in the aisles, and for the further reason that, if passengers were not ready to alight when cars were stopped, traffic would be delayed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; John G. Park, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth E. Anderson against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John H. Lucas and Charles N. Sadler, for appellant. C. W. Prince and J. C. Eubank, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant's street cars in Kansas City. In making ready to alight from the car she was thrown violently to the street and sustained the injuries for which she brought this action. She recovered judgment in the circuit court.

Since the verdict was for the plaintiff, we must assume all the evidence in her behalf to be true, and must allow to her all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. It appears: That she was traveling east and signaled the car to stop at McGee street. That she then arose from her seat and proceeded to the platform of the car preparatory to alighting when it should stop. As the car slowed down as though to stop, she stepped close to the edge of the platform, at the same time gathering her skirts in her hand so as to be ready for stepping off when the car should stop. Just at this time the motorman caused the car to be suddenly and violently jerked forward so that plaintiff was thrown with great force upon the street, from whence she was taken up by persons who witnessed the fall. There was no attempt made by plaintiff to get off the car. She suffered serious injury.

It is somewhat difficult to follow the different objections taken to the judgment. The petition...