Lee v. Elizabeth, P. & C. J. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 June 1903
• Parties: LEE v. ELIZABETH, P. & C. J. RY. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

55 A. 106

69 N.J.L. 607

LEE

v. ELIZABETH, P. & C. J. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 8, 1903.

Action by Mary Lee against the Elizabeth, Plainfield & Central Jersey Railway Company. On a rule to show cause. Rule dismissed. New trial granted.

Argued February term, 1903, before GUMMERE, C. J., and FORT, PITNEY, and HENDRICKSON, JJ.

J. A. Kiernan, for plaintiff.

Frank Bergen, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. A new trial is sought mainly upon the ground that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence. Plaintiff testified as follows: "Q. When the car stopped at Chestnut street, what did you do? A. I went to go out, and I had one foot on the step to go down, and before 1 had the other foot on the conductor pulled the bell, and the— I went on the street. Before I had the other foot on the step— the right foot was not on the step when he pulled the bell—and I went on the street." The step mentioned was the running board. Two boys, aged 11 and 14 years, respectively, who were upon the street at the time, were called to corroborate her. Their testimony will be referred to later.

To meet the plaintiff's case, three passengers who occupied the next seat in the rear of plaintiff testified, in substance, that the train stopped, and some passengers in the rear got off; that just as the car started to move again the plaintiff turned to one of their party, and asked if this was Chestnut street, Roselle, and, being answered in the affirmative, she, without notifying the conductor, stepped off the car and fell. Another witness testified that he and two ladies, who were his guests, from a distance, alighted from this car after it had stopped, and that then the car started on, and had only just started when he saw the car moving, and the plaintiff stepping off, and then saw her down in the street at the side of the car. He further testified that there was plenty of opportunity to get off the car while it stopped. The conductor's testimony was to the like effect as that of these four disinterested witnesses. The plaintiff herself admitted on cross-examination that when the car had gotten to Chestnut street she did ask the girls behind her if that was Chestnut street. She was not asked to explain whether, as she was stepping her foot upon the running board, she had hold of the car, and whether she had released her hold when the car started. She was not recalled for rebuttal, and there was a singular absence of detail in her account of the accident....