Kupke v. St. Louis Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 22 January 1907
• Citation: 99 S.W. 472,122 Mo. App. 355
• Parties: KUPKE v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

99 S.W. 472

122 Mo. App. 355

KUPKE v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 22, 1907.

1. CARRIERS—INJURIES TO PASSENGER—NEGLIGENCE —SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

In an action for injuries caused by a fall from a street car step, evidence examined, and held to sustain a verdict for plaintiff, based on the theory that plaintiff was thrown from the car step by the act of defendant's servants in starting the car before she had alighted.

2. DAMAGES—EXCESSIVE DAMAGES—PERSONAL INJURIES.

Plaintiff received injuries in falling from a street car step, and it was shown that her health, which had been good before the accident, was thereby so impaired that she was a nervous wreck, unable to perform any of her duties, and in need of almost constant care and attention. Held, that $4,000 damages was not excessive.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; O'Neill Ryan, Judge.

Action by Augusta Kupke against the St. Louis Transit Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Boyle, Priest & Lehmann and Sears Lehmann, for appellant. E. E. Wood, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

Plaintiff was hurt by a fall from one of defendant's electric cars. The accident occurred October 3, 1903, at the intersection of Virginia and Fillmore streets, in the city of St. Louis, and was alleged to have been due to an untimely starting of the car by order of the conductor while plaintiff was in the act of alighting. She is of stout habit of body. She had two small grandchildren in charge at the time of the accident. Several witnesses, including plaintiff, testified the children got off the car in safety, but, when plaintiff was in the act of stepping off, the conductor, who was on the rear platform, from which plaintiff was alighting, and could observe her movements, gave the signal for the car to start; that it did start, in response to the signal, before plaintiff had stepped to the street, and she was hurled to the ground. Witnesses for defendant said plaintiff got off the car before the children and was thrown to the street, not by a movement of the car, but by stepping on some loose stones. As is usual in personal injury actions, we are pressed by defendant's counsel to overturn the verdict on the ground that the evidence to support defendant's theory of the accident was more probable and reasonable than the evidence to support plaintiff's theory, and, therefore, ought to be believed. We could not accede to this contention in the present...