Bell v. Central Electric Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 20 May 1907 |
Citation | 125 Mo. App. 660,103 S.W. 144 |
Parties | BELL v. CENTRAL ELECTRIC RY. CO. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; John G. Park, Judge.
Action by Sarah Bell against the Central Electric Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
John H. Lucas, Chas. A. Loomis, and Ben F. White, for appellant. Jamison, Elliott & Ostergard, for respondent.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff recovered judgment in the sum of $800, and defendant appealed.
The injury occurred in the afternoon of March 26, 1904. Plaintiff was a passenger on an electric car operated by defendant on one of its lines of street railway in Kansas City. The car was running eastward on Independence avenue, and, as it approached Charlotte street, a regular stopping place, plaintiff gave the signal to stop, as she desired to alight at that point. The evidence introduced by plaintiff tends to show that, in obedience to the signal, the car came to a full stop at the east line of Charlotte street, its accustomed stopping place, and plaintiff left her seat and proceeded to depart. Two other passengers preceded her, who left the car in safety, but plaintiff, while in the act of stepping from the last step to the street, was violently thrown to the pavement by the sudden starting of the car, and injured. During the time the car was stationary the conductor remained in the front part thereof, where he was engaged in collecting fares. The evidence offered by defendant is to the effect that, when the signal to stop was given, the motorman reduced speed and the car was running at the rate of two or three miles per hour when it reached the west line of Charlotte street, that plaintiff attempted to alight at that point, and that her fall was caused by the manner in which the attempt was made. The negligence alleged in the petition is that while plaintiff "was proceeding with due care and diligence to alight from said car, and while she had one foot on the step of said car and her other foot extended to step to the street from said car step, the trainmen in charge of said car, who were then and there the agents, servants, and employés of defendant, carelessly and negligently caused said car to start forward while plaintiff was in the aforesaid dangerous position in stepping from said car step, and before plaintiff had a reasonable time to alight from said car, and plaintiff was thereby thrown from said car step; * * * that said trainmen, agents, and employés of defendant then and there knew of plaintiff's dangerous position in stepping from said car step and of the lack of reasonable time given her to alight safely from said car, or by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence in their duties as such trainmen in then and there operating said car could have known of the same in time to have averted plaintiff's injury."
At the request of plaintiff, the court instructed the jury, in part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial