Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Lide

Decision Date30 May 1912
Citation177 Ala. 400,58 So. 990
PartiesBIRMINGHAM RY., LIGHT & POWER CO. v. LIDE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; A. O. Lane, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Mary W. Lide against the Birmingham Railway, Light &amp Power Company. From an order granting a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Mayfield and Sayre, JJ., dissenting.

Tillman Bradley & Morrow and L. C. Leadbeater, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

Bowman Harsh & Beddow, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

Plaintiff sued defendant, a common carrier of passengers, for injuries suffered by her as a passenger while alighting from defendant's car. The complaint alleges that while she "was engaged in or about alighting from said car at a point on said railway, to wit, at or near the intersection of Eleventh avenue and Twenty-Fourth Street South, in Birmingham, Ala., said car was started, jerked, or the speed thereof suddenly increased, and as a proximate consequence thereof plaintiff was thrown or caused to fall," etc.

Plaintiff's testimony was to the effect that, when the car stopped at Fifteenth street, she told the conductor to put her off at Fourteenth street; that as the car approached Fourteenth street he walked to the front of the car, and, as he did not ring it down, she reminded him again that she wanted to get off there, and he then hurriedly rang it down; that the car was then near the Fourteenth street stopping point; that after the car stopped she left her seat and walked out on the platform past the conductor and proceeded to alight, and just as her foot touched the pavement the car gave a start; and that, her hand still holding onto the car, she was jerked along with it and thrown violently down. The testimony of the conductor, corroborated substantially by the motorman and several passengers, was that he had rung down the car for plaintiff to get off at Fourteenth street, and that it was slowing down but, before it had ever stopped, plaintiff went out on the platform and stepped off the car while it was still in motion; that, when he saw she was going to step off, he caught hold of her to prevent it, but it was too late to stop her, and she stepped off and fell; that the car stopped before it got to Fourteenth street, and that he did not ring the car ahead before it stopped.

The court gave a number of written charges requested by defendant, among them the following: "If you believe from the evidence that the plaintiff got off of defendant's car while it was in motion, you must find for the defendant." There was verdict and judgment for the defendant, but the court granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial, and the appeal is from that judgment. The motion for a new trial was grounded on the alleged errors of the court in giving to the jury eight separate written charges, including the charge above recited.

It was open to the jury to believe and accept in toto the narrative of either the plaintiff or the witnesses for the defendant. But it is readily conceivable that they might have believed some portion of each, thus producing a sort of composite result by discarding extremes. For example, they might have believed substantially all of plaintiff's testimony, and yet been convinced by the weight of the other evidence that the car had not become entirely stationary when plaintiff got off. The motion of the car may have been so slow as to have deceived plaintiff, or at least to have seemingly invited her safe and easy debarkation. Whether her attempt was under the circumstances negligent or not, and whether, if negligent, it and not a jerk or sudden increase in speed proximately caused plaintiff's fall and injuries, were we think, on the whole evidence, questions for the jury. And, if there was such a jerk or sudden increase in speed after the car had become nearly stationary, and just as plaintiff was getting off, it was for the jury to say on the whole evidence whether the defendant's agents were therein negligent. The charge referred to withdrew these questions from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Howton v. Mathias
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1916
    ... ... Appeal ... from City Court of Birmingham; John C. Pugh, Judge ... Trover ... and ... Ala. 235, 64 So. 340, and B.R., L. & P. Co. v. Lide, ... 177 Ala. 400, 58 So. 990. In the Savage Case the ... and unjust. N.C. & St. L. Ry. v. Crosby, 70 So. 7 ... In ... Manistee Mill ... ...
  • Lawrenceburg Roller Mills Co. v. Chas. A. Jones & Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 5, 1920
    ... ... London, ... Yancey & Brower, of Birmingham, for appellant ... Miller ... & Graham, of ... 522, Ann.Cas.1913A, 878; B.R., L. & P ... Co. v. Lide, 177 Ala. 400, 404, 58 So. 990; 1 Greenl. on ... Ev. § ... ...
  • Maise v. City of Gadsden
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1936
    ... ... Grambs v. City of Birmingham, 202 Ala. 490, 80 So ... 874; Bland v. City of Mobile, ... 618, 13 So. 615; North ... Birmingham St. Ry. Co. v. Calderwood, 89 Ala. 247, 7 So ... 360, 18 ... Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co. v ... Lide, 177 Ala. 400, 58 So. 990; Central of Georgia ... Ry. Co ... ...
  • Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Glenn
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 21, 1912
    ...which showed that it was "at the loop at East Lake," although the station designated as East Lake was at another point. B. R., L. & P. Co. v. Lide, supra. or not plaintiff suffered mental distress in consequence of the alleged offensive language was an inferential fact, to be gathered by th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT