Kroner v. St. Louis Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 15 March 1904
• Citation: 107 Mo. App. 41,80 S.W. 915
• Parties: KRONER v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

80 S.W. 915

107 Mo. App. 41

KRONER v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.^*

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 15, 1904.

CARRIERS—STREET RAILWAYS—INJURY TO PASSENGER ALIGHTING—DAMAGES—MARRIED WOMEN—SEPARATE LABOR.

1. Where a street car is stopped to allow a passenger to alight, and before she has a reasonable time to do so, and while she is proceeding to the door, it is put in motion with such violence as to throw and injure her, the company is liable.

2. In an action by a married woman for personal injury, recovery may not be had for diminished earning capacity, there being no evidence that she ever did work outside her household duties, which is not within Rev. St. 1899, § 4340, giving her the wages of her separate labor.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robt. M. Foster, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth Kroner against the St. Louis Transit Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Boyle, Priest & Lehman, for appellant. A. R. Taylor, for respondent.

Statement.

BLAND, P. J.

The petition in part is as follows: "That on the twelfth day of December, 1902, at Eighth and Morgan streets in the city of St. Louis, the defendant, by its servants in charge of the south-bound car on Eighth street, received the plaintiff as a passenger thereon, and, for a valuable consideration paid by plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant undertook and agreed with the plaintiff to safely carry her to her point of destination on the defendant's road, said destination being California avenue and Arsenal street, and to there stop said car a reasonable time to allow the plaintiff time and opportunity to alight from said car, while it so stopped at said place. Yet the plaintiff avers that defendant's servants in charge of said car, unmindful of its said undertaking and duty in the premises, did, whilst said car was stopped at said destination to enable plaintiff and other passengers to alight from said car, and whilst the plaintiff was proceeding to alight from said car whilst so stopped, and before she had a reasonable time or opportunity to do so, negligently cause and suffer said car to start and be in motion and to sustain a jerk and shock, whereby the plaintiff was thrown down upon said car, and sustained great and permanent injuries upon her head and body." The answer was a general denial.

The evidence tended to prove that the plaintiff became a passenger on defendant's car at Eighth and Morgan streets, and was carried as such passenger to her destination; that her seat in the car was the first seat behind the motorman, being at the front end of the car; that as the car approached her destination—California avenue and Arsenal street—she gave the signal, by pushing the electric button, of her intention to get off at such destination; that the car slowed down and stopped at such destination; that she immediately rose in her seat, and was proceeding to the rear platform through the aisle of the car to get off, starting before the car had fully stopped; that while the car was stopped, and while she was near the rear door of the car on her way to the platform, the car started up, and by the motion and shock of the car she was thrown down in the car, and sustained the injuries she complains of. A woman passenger from a seat near the rear end had gotten off while the car was stopped. That the car was standing when the plaintiff was on her way to get off was also testified to by one of defendant's witnesses as follows: "Q. She seemed to be getting off the best way she could? A. Evidently, yes, sir. Q. When you saw her, and when the car started, she was walking toward the rear door of the rear platform? A. Yes, sir." This evidence shows that the car started while plaintiff was walking to the rear platform.

The injuries were serious and permanent, partially disabling her from labor. She has never been able to work since the injury as she did before her hurt. Doctor Hochdorfer testified that her leg will never be normal again; that she will never have full and perfect use of her limb. The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff was at the time a married woman. The plaintiff offered no evidence in regard to any separate earnings. The only evidence in regard to labor was the following in her direct examination: "Q. Since your hurt—since this accident happened to you—what has been your ability to do work and labor? A. As much as I could do. I never have done very hard work, just managing my children and husband, and telling them how to do the work. Q. That is a pretty stiff job—managing your husband? A. I expect you know what I mean. Q. Yes. Have you been able to work as you did before you were hurt? A. Never; no, sir." The evidence as to the manner of starting the car was the following in her direct examination: "...