Cooke v. Springfield Traction Co.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1910
• Citation: 144 Mo. App. 451,129 S.W. 265
• Parties: COOKE v. SPRINGFIELD TRACTION CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

129 S.W. 265

144 Mo. App. 451

COOKE v. SPRINGFIELD TRACTION CO.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 6, 1910.

1. CARRIERS (§ 280)—PASSENGERS—DUTY.

A carrier must exercise the highest degree of care for the safety of passengers.

2. CARRIERS (§ 303) — PASSENGERS — NEGLIGENCE —EVIDENCE.

To start a car with a sudden jerk while the passenger is alighting is evidence of negligence, in an action by the passenger for resulting injuries.

3. CARRIERS (§ 320)—PASSENGERS—INJURIES —ACTIONS—JURY QUESTIONS—NEGLIGENCE.

In an action against a street car company for the death of plaintiff's father, by defendant's negligence in starting the car when he was preparing to alight, evidence held sufficient to take the case to the jury.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; George Pepperdine, Special Judge.

Action by Eunice A. Cooke against the Springfield Traction Company. From the judgment for defendant on demurrer to the evidence, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

A. H. Wear and Hamlin & Seawell, for appellant. Delaney & Delaney, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

This is a suit by plaintiff to recover damages for the death of her husband, who, it is claimed, lost his life on account of the negligence of the defendant. The defendant, on the 15th day of August, 1903, was operating a street railroad along certain streets in the city of Springfield. On that morning the deceased, who was 73 years of age, boarded a car of the defendant to be carried to a point on Commercial street, between Robberson avenue and Jefferson street. The deceased boarded what was known as a "summer car," being an open car. The defendant maintained a double track on a part of its line at least, and a rope was stretched along the left side of the car, presumably for the purpose of notifying persons not to get off on that side, although the testimony is not clear on that point. The evidence shows that at the time of the accident it was the custom of the defendant to stop its cars at any place passengers desired to board or alight, whether the same was at the street corners or between the streets. On the sides of the cars were running boards extending the full length thereof, so that persons getting on or off the cars used these boards.

On the date aforesaid, after the car had passed Robberson avenue, the deceased rang the bell, which was the signal that he desired to alight, and in response to his signal the motorman turned off the current and slackened the speed of the car. About that time, and while the car was slowing down in response to the signal, another passenger got off on the right-hand side of the car, and the deceased was getting out under the rope, evidently for the purpose to alight on the left side, and then what happened is described by Mrs. Franklin, a witness called by plaintiff, as follows: "I heard the rings of the bell, and I turned to look to see who was on the car, and I saw this old gentleman in the act of getting off, and saw him fall under the car. When I first saw him, he was standing on the running board on the north side of the car, and had hold of those handholds, or handbars, whatever you would call them. That was after I heard the bell ring and the car was slowing...