Blakney v. Seattle Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1902
• Citation: 28 Wash. 607,68 P. 1037
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: BLAKNEY v. SEATTLE ELECTRIC CO.

68 P. 1037

28 Wash. 607

BLAKNEY v. SEATTLE ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 13, 1902

Appeal from superior court, King county; G. Meade Emory, Judge.

Action for personal injuries by Nettie Blakney against the Seattle Electric Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Struve, Allen, Hughes & McMicken, for appellant.

Remsberg & Simmonds, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The appellant operates an electric street car line in the city of Seattle. The respondent brought this action against it to recover for personal injuries received by her while a passenger upon one of its cars. The respondent testifies that she entered the car at Fremont, intending to ride from thence to the intersection of Third and Pike streets; that the car did not stop at Third and Pike streets, and she was carried on further towards the business portion of the city. She says that as the car approached the intersection of Spring and Second streets she looked for the conductor, and saw him in the front part of the car, collecting fares, but, as there were people standing in the aisle, she was unable to attrract his attention; that she then determined to ride to the next street,--Madison,--where she knew the car always stopped because of the intersection of another railway line; that as the car continued to approach Spring street it was slowed down, and, thinking it was going to stop, she left her seat and went to the rear platform, intending to alight when the car came to a full stop; that after the reached the platform the car started with a jerk, and that is all she remembers until she felt some one picking her up from the pavement in the street. She admits that she did not notify the conductor of her place of destination, and that she gave him no notice that she desired to alight at Spring street. While she denies that she was in the act of leaving the car at the time the car jerked, she admits that a man got off the car just ahead of her, and that she was preparing to alight, but does not remember the particular part of the platform on which she was standing at the time she fell, nor does she know at what place in the street she fell. To prove the manner in which the car was operated at the time, she called the motorman, who, at some time previous to the trial had left the employment of the appellant company. He testified that as the car approached Spring street he threw off the current, applied the brakes, and slowed down the car so as to be able to stop at Spring street in case he received a bell so to do; that, as he got well across, but while yet in the street, and receiving no bell to stop, he loosed the brakes, and allowed the car to roll towards the next street where he was required to stop. He says further that there was no considerable grade at that place, that there was no increase in the speed of the car, and that it was going at the rate of about three miles an hour. Another witness called by the respondent, who was standing on the platform at the time she fell, says, in his direct examination, that the car had pretty nearly stopped when the respondent reached the platform. Being asked to state what then happened, he answered, 'Well, the car started up, and she fell off that is all.' On cross-examination he said she had reached the step of the car, and was stepping off to the ground, when the accident happened. Still another witness called by her says he was standing on the front platform at the time of the accident; that the car, as it approached Spring street, was slowed down to about three miles an hour; that there was but little grade between Spring and Madison streets, and that there was no jerk or increase in the speed of the car between those places. He also says he saw the respondent as she was getting up from the pavement where she had fallen, and that this was in front of a certain store, which is conceded to be midway between Spring and Madison streets. It was in evidence also that the car was a large one, some 40 feet in length, and was carrying at the time about 80 passengers, many of whom were standing, occupying not only the aisle of the car, but the front and the rear platforms as well. This is, in substance, all of the evidence of the respondent, except as to injuries and damages suffered. On the part of the appellant it was shown, and it stands in the record...