Boice v. Des Moines City Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1911 |
| Citation | 133 N.W. 657,153 Iowa 472 |
| Parties | SARAH M. BOICE v. DES MOINES CITY RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. W. H. MCHENRY, Judge.
ACTION to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff while a passenger on a car of defendant resulting from falling off the platform of said car by reason of the alleged negligence of the conductor in its operation. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and from a judgment in her favor the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Guernsey Parker & Miller and A. G. Rippey, for appellant.
Boyd & Bray and Bannister & Cox, for appellee.
The evidence tended to show that plaintiff attempted to get on board one of defendant's street cars at its stopping place on Walnut street east of Seventh street, in the city of Des Moines, approaching the car from the sidewalk on the south side of the street; and that after reaching the first step of the platform, and while she was in the act of mounting to the second step, the car started in response to the signal of the conductor, and plaintiff was thrown to the pavement, suffering severe injuries. The alleged grounds of negligence which were submitted to the jury were, first, that when plaintiff was mounting the steps of the car, and before sufficient time had elapsed to permit her to reach that part of the car in which passengers were expected to ride defendant negligently, carelessly, and wrongfully caused the said car to suddenly start forward, throwing plaintiff to the ground; second, that the conductor, seeing the plaintiff on the step of the car and as she was about to enter, stopped the plaintiff and kept her from entering the car before it started, resulting in her being thrown from the car; and, third, that the conductor, when he saw plaintiff on the steps of the car and knew that she was in a position of danger, failed to assist her until she could reach a place of safety.
I. The principal contention for appellant is that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury for plaintiff on any one of the three allegations of negligence, and that the court erred as to each of these allegations in submitting it to the jury. We should hardly be justified in discussing in detail the evidence appearing in the record for the purpose of showing that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on each of these allegations of negligence. The general theory of counsel for appellant is that the car was of the "pay as you enter" style of construction, the place for the conductor being about the center of the rear platform beside the passageway for exit, and separated by a rail from the passageway for entrance which occupied the rear portion of the platform; that the plaintiff, while waiting for passengers to dismount, stood beside and close to the body of the car, where she could not be seen by the conductor, instead of approaching the passageway for entrance at the rear end of the car where she could have been seen and might have entered without waiting for the dismounting of the passengers by the passageway for exit; that she stepped upon the car in the passageway for exit, and was not seen by the conductor until the signal for the starting of the car had been given by him standing in his proper position for that purpose; and that, therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the conductor in causing the car to start before plaintiff had reached a place of safety. The difficulty with this proposition is that it ignores the testimony of plaintiff that she went straight across from the sidewalk to the entrance of the car, approaching it to the left of a passenger who was dismounting, and therefore was in plain sight of the conductor if he had been standing in his proper position, and that the car had not started, and she had heard no signal for its starting when she mounted the step. There was plainly a conflict in the evidence as to the position of plaintiff when she attempted to mount the step, and the question as to whether the conductor was negligent in starting the car before plaintiff had reached a place of safety was for the jury.
As to the allegation that the conductor negligently stopped the plaintiff and kept her from entering the car before it started, there was evidence tending to show...
To continue reading
Request your trial