Blue Grass Traction Co. v. Skillman

• Decision Date: 04 June 1907
• Parties: BLUE GRASS TRACTION CO. v. SKILLMAN.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

102 S.W. 809

BLUE GRASS TRACTION CO. v. SKILLMAN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 4, 1907

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bourbon County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Mamie Skillman against the Blue Grass Traction Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

B. D Berry and Morton, Webb & Wilson, for appellant.

Dennis Dundon, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

In October, 1905, Mrs. Mamie Skillman, with her uncle W. H Mappin, and his wife, were passengers on a car of the Blue Grass Traction Company from Paris to a station known as No 56, or the city limits. When they got near the station the conductor called out the station, and when they got still nearer he called it out a second time. Her uncle then got up. The conductor came down the aisle going towards the door, and asked her uncle to step aside, which he did, and, as the conductor went on to the door, Mrs. Skillman followed him her uncle and aunt following her. When the conductor got to the door, he opened the door and stepped outside upon the platform. It was 10 o'clock at night, and dark. Mrs. Skillman, supposing that the car had stopped, walked down the steps and stepped off, unconscious that the car was moving. She was severely hurt, and brought this suit to recover for her injury. The jury found for her, fixing the damages at $530. The court entered judgment upon the verdict, and the defendant appeals.

The car was running downgrade. The current had been turned off at the top of the grade, and it was running so smoothly that Mrs. Skillman was not conscious of the motion. Just as she was stepping off, her uncle, seeing that the car was in motion, called to her; but it was too late. The car ran about 60 feet after her fall. The conductor was standing right at the door as she went out, and testified that as she came out he said to her, "Look out! wait until the car stops." But in this he is contradicted by all the other witnesses, who say that he said nothing. The conductor was bound to know, when the people followed him to the door, after he had announced the station and opened the door for them, that they were coming out of the car for the purpose of alighting, and it was incumbent upon him to warn them of the danger; for he knew the car had not stopped, and he could not but know, from their actions, that they were coming out to get off. Mrs. Skillman passed right by him as she went down the steps to get off. He could see plainly that she was going to get off, if he had paid attention to what was going on. It was incumbent upon him under the circumstances to pay attention, as it was dark and the car was moving so smoothly that a person would not perceive the danger. The court did not, therefore, err in overruling the defendant's motion for a peremptory instruction.

The instructions of the court to the jury were in effect as follows: (1) That they should find for the plaintiff if they believed from the evidence that the conductor knew the car was in motion, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known it; that the plaintiff did not know it; that the conductor opened the door and took...