Lacas v. Detroit City Ry.
Decision Date | 01 July 1892 |
Citation | 92 Mich. 412,52 N.W. 745 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | LACAS v. DETROIT CITY RAILWAY. |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; CORNELIUS J. REILLY, Judge.
Suit by Salame Lacas against the Detroit City Railway. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Sidney T. Miller, (John C Donnelly, of counsel,) for appellant.
William Stacey, for appellee.
This suit is brought to recover for injuries received by the plaintiff while attempting to alight from one of the defendant's horse cars. The defendant asked that the jury be instructed that the plaintiff had not made a case by her testimony, and the refusal to give this instruction is the principal ground relied on for reversal. The plaintiff testified that on the 11th of August, 1890, she left Dr Brodie's house, where she had been at work during the day, and stopped and purchased some groceries, which she carried in a basket; that she got aboard the car in question and the moment she put her basket down she noticed that there was a strange conductor in the car; that she told him that she wanted to get off, as she was on the wrong car; that he laughed at her, and she turned back, and took her basket on her arm, and took hold of the post at the side of the car to get down easy; took hold of the post because she did not want to fall; took care of herself not to fall; as she was going to put her foot on the step, the bell was rung, and she fell and broke her arm. The car was an open one, and the step was a board running along its side. On cross-examination she testified that she stood beside the post, and took hold of it with her right hand, holding the basket in her left hand, expecting to hold onto the post until she got down, when she thought she would let go, so the effect of getting down with her right hand holding the post would be to have her face turned towards the rear of the car. The conductor started the car before she got her foot on the ground. He rang the bell before she got her foot on the board,-before she started to get down. And on redirect examination she was asked: We think the testimony was sufficient to justify the circuit judge in submitting the case to the jury. The testimony tended to show that the plaintiff had reached a point where it would be difficult to turn back before the bell was rung, and the car started in the very instant when she was acting. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence in continuing her descent from the car. Railroad Co. v. Crunk, (Ind. Sup.) 21 N.E. 31; Railroad Co. v. Coulbourn, (Md.) 16 A. 208; Wyatt v. Railroad Co., 55 Mo. 485; Strand v. Railway Co., 64 Mich. 216, 31 N.W. 184.
2. The testimony of statements of present sufferings made by the plaintiff to witness Verdon were competent. The court took due care to exclude relations of...
To continue reading
Request your trial