Dudley v. Front Street Cable Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 March 1896
• Citation: Dudley v. Front Street Cable Ry. Co., 73 F. 128 (U.S. Cir. Ct., D. Wash., N.D. 1896)
• Parties: DUDLEY v. FRONT STREET CABLE RY. CO. et al.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington, Northern Division

73 F. 128

DUDLEY v. FRONT STREET CABLE RY. CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Washington, Northern Division.

March 24, 1896

John Arthur and J. Lindley Green, for plaintiff.

E. C Hughes, for defendant.

HANFORD District Judge.

I find from the evidence in this case that on the night of November 3, 1894, the plaintiff, while attempting to get on a car operated by the defendant company, lost his footing as the car started forward, and in consequence the tibia of his right leg was fractured near the ankle joint. The defendant's line of railway curves from Front street into Pike, and runs the length of one block in Pike street and then curves into Second street. The car was fairly loaded before reaching Pike street, and a stop was made a distance of about 30 feet from the beginning of the Second street curve, to take on other passengers. When the car stopped the plaintiff was some distance away, and in front of the car. He hastened to take the car, and, on reaching it, found the front end fully occupied, and then went briskly to the rear platform, which was somewhat crowded, the inside of the car being full,-- so much so that a lady who stepped on the platform just ahead of the plaintiff, was obliged to remain standing on the platform, and one other passenger, unable to get on the platform, was standing on the step, holding on by the hand railing. The conductor was inside of the car, and gave a signal to start, and the car did start quickly, just as the plaintiff took hold of the hand rail and placed one foot on the step. In reaching to seize the hand rail on the forward side of the step, his hand struck the other passenger standing on the step, and he was disconcerted by missing his hold. As the car came upon the curve, its velocity was to great for plaintiff's strength, he having failed to obtain a secure footing, and the injury resulted as above stated.

It was the duty of the conductor, before giving the signal to the gripman, to look around, and to have seen that all passengers to take passage at that place were safely on board; and failure in the performance of this duty cannot be excused by the fact that the conductor did not actually see the plaintiff. The negligence of the conductor in this regard is clearly established by all the evidence in the case including his own testimony. The plaintiff was diligent in attempting to get on the car while it was stationary. He may have been lacking in dexterity, but that is not such a fault as to preclude him from recovering damages.

The evidence shows that the plaintiff has expended for surgical treatment and medicines $120, and has suffered loss of...