Chapman v. Kansas City Rys. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13434.,13434.
• Citation: 217 S.W. 623
• Parties: CHAPMAN v. KANSAS CITY RYS. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

217 S.W. 623

CHAPMAN v. KANSAS CITY RYS. CO.

No. 13434.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 5, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Clarence A. Burney, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Emma Chapman against the Kansas City Railways Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

R. J. Higgins, of Kansas City, Kan., and Mont T. Prewitt, Roscoe P. Conkling, E. E. Ball, and Charles L. Carr, all of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

John Bates and Milton J. Oldham, both of Kansas City, Mo., for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

Plaintiff's action rests upon the charge that she was a passenger on defendant's street car, and while in the act of alighting at Twenty-Fourth and Holmes streets in Kansas City, and while her feet had not yet left the outer step of the car, the motorman negligently closed the door behind her so as to catch and hold her cloak, and negligently started the car, whereby she was thrown to and dragged upon the pavement, and serious and permanent injuries inflicted upon her. The answer was a general denial. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $1,500, and defendant has appealed.

Plaintiff testified that she boarded the car at Eighth and Walnut streets and seated herself on the front cross seat on the right hand of the car going south; that when the car slowed up for Twenty-Fourth street, her journey's end, she got up and approached the doors at the front end of the car near the motorman; that a young man preceded her, and either he or the motorman opened the door, she did not know which, but she thought the motorman did; that when she started to alight the car was standing perfectly still; that while she was in the act of alighting, with her feet upon the outer step, the car door was suddenly closed behind her and the car started up; that the starting of the car and the catching of her cloak in the door caused her to fall and be dragged a distance of perhaps 10 feet, when the car was again stopped, and she was taken from her perilous situation. The regular stopping place for letting off passengers was at the property line on the north side of Twenty-Fourth street, and plaintiff says the car stopped at the usual stopping place; that she was picked up at a point out in Twenty-Fourth street. It was about 6:15 in the evening of November 17, 1916.

A lady passenger testified she sat about 3 feet from the front of the car on the left hand side; that the car stopped at Twenty-Fourth street and was standing perfectly still; that she saw the plaintiff get off the car, and thought the motorman closed the door behind her, though she was not sure of it; that immediately the car started up and went 10 or 15 feet, when it stopped again, and some one on the car said a lady was hurt; that she did not observe the cloak caught in the door, nor did she see the plaintiff on the street after she got off the car; that she did not hear the motorman or any one else say anything to plaintiff before she got off. (The motorman claimed the plaintiff attempted to get off shortly before the car stopped, and that he spoke to her very loud and cautioned her to be careful and wait until the car stopped.)

A sister of the last-named witness who was seated beside her testified that she thought the car had stopped when the plaintiff started to get off; that the motorman closed the door after her, and the door in closing caught plaintiff's coat; that she thought the car went half way across Twenty-Fourth street before it stopped again; that there were very few on the car, and no one was standing up between witness and the motorman; that she did not hear him or any one else say anything to the plaintiff before the latter got off; that she thought the motorman opened the door for the plaintiff, but she did not know; that she was looking at the plaintiff, whom she knew slightly, and was not paying much attention to him; that after the car stopped the second time she understood the lady was hurt, a crowd gathered around, but she did not get off, and in about five minutes the car went on again; that she did not see plaintiff's cloak at the instant the door closed on it, but noticed the cloak in the door after it was shut. The cloak, badly ripped and torn, was introduced in evidence, together with testimony that the fall and dragging caused it, and that those who picked plaintiff up and took her home also picked up buttons torn from the cloak.

On the other hand, defendant's evidence tended to prove that the plaintiff got off about 10 feet before the car reached the usual stopping place and while it was still in motion; that the motorman did not open the door and did not close it on the cloak. At one place the motorman said he could not have closed the door on her cloak, and that he did not touch the door at all before the car had come to a stop and she was off the car. But afterward, when asked where plaintiff was, on or off the car before he touched the...