Louisville And Southern Indiana Traction Company v. Korbe

• Decision Date: 29 November 1910
• Docket Number: 21,793
• Citation: 93 N.E. 5,175 Ind. 450
• Parties: Louisville and Southern Indiana Traction Company v. Korbe
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

93 N.E. 5

175 Ind. 450

Louisville and Southern Indiana Traction Company v. Korbe

No. 21,793

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 29, 1910

Rehearing Denied April 18, 1911, Reported at: 175 Ind. 450 at 455.

From Clark Circuit Court; H. C. Montgomery, Judge.

Action by Mary Korbe against the Louisville and Southern Indiana Traction Company. From a judgment on a verdict for $ 1,000 for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Appellate Court under § 1394 Burns 1908, subd. 2, Acts 1901 p 565, § 10.

Reversed.

Charles D. Kelso and George H. Voight, for appellant.

Stotsenburg & Weathers, for appellee.

OPINION

Jordan, J.

As disclosed by appellee's complaint, appellant is a corporation duly organized. It owns and operates an electric street railroad in the city of New Albany, Floyd county Indiana, and is a common carrier of passengers for hire over its road. It further appears from the complaint that on August 29, 1906, plaintiff became, and was accepted by appellant as a passenger on one of its cars in the city of New Albany; that she became a passenger on said car at the north terminus of the State street line in said city, and desired to be carried as a passenger on the car to the intersection of State and Spring streets in that city, a regular stopping place on signal to the conductor of the car; that as said car reached said regular stopping place, a passenger thereon gave the usual signal to the conductor to stop said car; that the conductor signaled the motorman to stop the car at said stopping place; that as the car was stopping, plaintiff arose from her seat therein, and while it was moving very slowly she stepped with one foot upon the running-board of the car, so that she could quickly alight therefrom when the car should come to a stop; that while plaintiff was so in the act of stepping on the running-board, the conductor in charge of the car negligently signaled the motorman to start the car, and in response to such signal the car was suddenly, and to the plaintiff unexpectedly, started forward with a sudden and unexpected movement thereof, by reason of which plaintiff was thrown to the ground and injured.

The answer was a general denial. A trial by jury resulted in a general verdict in favor of plaintiff; also, answers to a series of interrogatories were returned by the jury. Over appellant's motion for a new trial, judgment was rendered on the general verdict. The errors relied on for a reversal are as follows: (1) Overruling the demurrer to the complaint. (2) Overruling the motion for a new trial.

The complaint is said to be defective, because it does not allege that the place where the accident in question occurred was one where appellant company was required to stop for the purpose of permitting passengers to alight from its cars. This criticism, under the facts alleged, is untenable; for the complaint shows that a signal was given to stop the car upon which plaintiff was a passenger at a regular stopping place. It was at the latter place that the accident happened. Since this place was a regular stopping place on appellant's line, it certainly may be said to be one at which the company was required to stop to receive and discharge passengers from its cars. The complaint is not open to the criticism in question.

The court, at the request of appellee, gave the jury instruction four, which is as follows: "If a car stops at a place where cars are accustomed to stop for the discharge of passengers, a passenger desiring to alight has a right to assume that the car will remain standing long enough to enable all who desire to do so to alight safely from said car. You are instructed that stopping a reasonable time for a passenger to alight from such car is not sufficient, but it is the duty of the conductor, or other...