Bines v. United Elec. Rys. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 6118.,6118. |
| Citation | 133 A. 624 |
| Parties | BINES v. UNITED ELECTRIC RYS. CO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Edward W. Blodgett, Judge.
Action by Carrie M. Bines against the United Electric Railways Company. Verdict directed for defendant, and plaintiff brings exception. Exception sustained, and case remitted for new trial.
Fitzgerald & Higgins and Walter V. Moriarty, all of Providence, for plaintiff.
Clifford Whipple and Alonzo R. Williams, both of Providence, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass on the case for negligence. The case came on for trial in the superior court before a jury. At the close of the plaintiff's testimony, the trial justice directed a verdict for the defendant. The action is now before this court on plaintiff's exception to the direction of the verdict.
On a motion to direct a verdict, if there is any legal evidence which would have justified the jury in arriving at a contrary verdict the issue must be submitted to them. Reddington v. Getchell, 40 R. I. 463, 101 A. 123. The party against whom the motion is made is entitled to the benefit of every favorable inference which may reasonably be drawn from the facts in evidence. Dawley v. Congdon, 42 R. I. 71, 105 A. 393; Huebel v. Baldwin, 45 R. I. 40, 119 A. 639; Dart v. R. I. H. Tr. Co., 45 R. I. 173, 121 A. 211; Jacobs v. United Electric Rys. Co., 46 R. I. 230, 125 A. 286; Cannon v. Staples, 46 R. I. 300, 127 A. 145. In this case it appears in evidence that January 6, 1923, plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant's electric cars operated on Hope street in the city of Providence. The car made a regular stop. Several passengers, including the plaintiff, arose from their seats and started to walk towards the door for the purpose of leaving the car. When the plaintiff had nearly reached the door she slipped and fell and sustained serious injuries. The declaration alleges that there was snow and ice upon the floor of the car, and that the defendant's servants had a reasonable time within which to have it removed. There was snow on the ground at the time of the accident, and it was quite cold. Plaintiff and other passengers had transferred from another car to the one in which she fell a few streets distant from the street where she wished to leave the latter car. To go from one car to the other, the passengers had to walk through the snow.
There is no doubt that the plaintiff fell in the car....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bines v. United Electric Rys. Co.
...At the first trial of this case, direction of a verdict for defendant after hearing only testimony for the plaintiff was held erroneous. 133 A. 624. The facts are there stated. We have re-read the testimony at the first trial wherein, on plaintiff's showing that ice was on the "plug" in the......
-
Hassam v. United Electric Rys. Co.
...on any reasonable view of the testimony the plaintiff can recover. Reddington v. Getchell, 40 R. I. 463, 101 A. 123; Bines v. United Electric Rys. Co. (R. I.) 133 A. 624. The relative rights and duties of those entitled to the use and enjoyment of the public streets were involved in the cas......