Bass v. Concord St. Ry

• Decision Date: 16 March 1900
• Citation: 46 A. 1056,70 N.H. 170
• Parties: BASS v. CONCORD ST. RY.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

46 A. 1056

70 N.H. 170

BASS

v. CONCORD ST. RY.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Merrimack.

March 16, 1900.

Exceptions from Merrimack county.

Action by Mary A. Bass against the Concord Street Railway. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants except Exceptions overruled.

Case for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, September 10, 1898, while alighting from a car, through the alleged negligence of the defendants in stopping for her to alight at a place not reasonably suitable for this purpose. Verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff's evidence tended to show the following facts: On Saturday afternoons during the summer preceding her injury, she went to Blossom Hill Cemetery upon one of the defendants' cars, which, in accordance with her request, was stopped at the first entrance to the cemetery for her to alight upon the west side of the track, where the ground is practically as high as the top of the rails, and she alighted in safety. Beyond this entrance the track is upon the west side of the highway, and the running board of an open car extends practically to the shoulder of the road. On the day of her injury she took an open car for the cemetery, as on previous occasions, and sat upon the west end of a seat. A friend was at her right, and further along the seat were other passengers. Her friend notified the conductor, when he collected their fares, of her desire to alight at the first entrance, but he failed to stop there. In response to a signal from a passenger, the conductor stopped a short distance beyond the entrance for her to alight. Upon the west side, opposite her seat, and where she claimed the accident occurred, there was a depression from two to eight inches in depth, the lowest part of which was four feet west of the track. The distance from the running board to the ground, where one would naturally step, was greater than at the entrance to the cemetery. The plaintiff had flowers and a wrap on her left arm; and, when the car stopped, she arose, and grasped the handle designed for the purpose with her right hand, and very carefully stepped upon the running board. The ground was lower than she expected to find it and she fell, and received her injuries. She did not look to see where she was about to step, but she testified that she took pains in stepping off. Upon cross-examination, she testified that the condition of her eyesight was very good indeed; that she did not see the condition of the ground before she stepped from the car; that she did not take any pains whatever to see where she was stepping as she stepped to the ground; that she expected to step out just as she used to at the cemetery; that she knew she was beyond the entrance to the cemetery; that, knowing this she took no pains whatever to see where she was stepping, but just stepped off; that she certainly could have seen where she was stepping if she had taken pains. Her evidence further tended to prove that the conductor did not assist her, or direct how or on which side of the car to alight. Subject to the defendants' exception, the plaintiff testified that her friend told the conductor, when he collected their fares, to "leave us at the cemetery," and that on prior occasions she had no difficulty in alighting at the entrance. Subject to the same exception, the friend testified that, when the conductor collected their fares, she said to him, "Blossom Hill Cemetery," and the plaintiff, in the presence and within the hearing of the conductor, added, "He ought to know where I am going by this time." At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the defendants moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants, or of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff. The motion was denied, and the defendants excepted.

The defendants made the following requests for instructions: (1) "That a passenger on a street car has no right to expect that the street where she alights shall be in such condition that she can safely alight on it; and if she does so without looking to see where she is stepping, and is injured thereby, she is guilty of such negligence as will prevent her recovery of damages against the railway company." "(2) That the defendants had the right to assume that the plaintiff, in alighting from a car in broad daylight, would notice any defect which was open to ordinary view in the street at the place where she stepped down from the car. (3) That a material question in this case bearing upon the defendants' negligence is whether or not the place at which the conductor stopped his car was a reasonably safe one at which the plaintiff might alight; and that, if the conductor had no special information in relation to the...